Explore in-depth analysis
On Point is a judicial analysis blog written by members of the Wisconsin State Public Defenders. It includes cases from the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, Supreme Court of Wisconsin, and the Supreme Court of the United States.
Search & Seizure – Applicability of Exclusionary Rule — violation of nonconstitutional right prison discipline
State v. Joseph Steffes, 2003 WI App 55, PFR filed 3/13/03
For Steffes: Daniel P. Ryan
Issue/Holding: Violation of administrative code provision does not support suppression. ¶¶9, 25.
But: this decision was based largely on State ex rel. Peckham v. Krenke, 229 Wis. 2d 778, 601 N.W.2d 287 (Ct. App. 1999), a case that was essentially overruled by State v.
Search & Seizure – Applicability of Exclusionary Rule – Vienna Convention on Consular Relations Doesn’t Create Privately Enforceable Right
State v. Jose Carlos Navarro, 2003 WI App 50, PFR filed 3/5/03
For Navarro: Michael S. Holzman
Issue/Holding:
¶1. This case presents an issue of first impression in Wisconsin. Jose Carlos Navarro contends that Article 36 of the Vienna Convention bestows a judicially enforceable individual right upon foreign nationals who have been detained by police to consult with the consular officials of their country.
Administrative Searches — CHIPS Investigation
John Doe and Jane Doe v. Heck, 327 F. 3d 492 (7th Cir. 01-3648, 4/16/03)
Issue/Holding: “(T)o the extent § 48.981(3)(c)1 authorizes government officials to conduct an investigation of child abuse on private property without a warrant or probable cause, consent, or exigent circumstances, the statute is unconstitutional.”
Also see Michael C. v. Gresbach, 7th Cir No. 07-1756, 5/19/08: “Today we reiterate Heck’s definitive holding,
Administrative Searches – Inventory – Existence of Police Policy Goes to Search, not Seizure
State v. Timothy T. Clark, 2003 WI App 121
For Clark: Rodney Cubbie
Issue/Holding: Existence of, and compliance with, a police policy on conducting an inventory search relates only to the reasonableness of the search and not the seizure of the item searched:
¶11. Here, the State contends that the search of the vehicle was a valid inventory search. “Although an inventory search is a ‘search’
Search & Seizure – Applicability of Exclusionary Rule – Violation of Nonconstitutional Right – Investigative Stop Outside Officer’s Jurisdiction
State v. James W. Keith, 2003 WI App 47, PFR filed 3/5/03
For Keith: Christopher A. Mutschler
Issue/Holding: Evidence not suppressible merely because seized by officer effectuating stop outside of his or her jurisdiction: there is no “reason to ignore the well-established rule that suppression is required only when evidence is obtained in violation of a constitutional right or in violation of a statute providing suppression as a remedy,”
Judicial Bias – (Non-Pecuniary) Stake in Outcome
State v. Terrance J. O’Neill, 2003 WI App 73
For O’Neill: Roger D. Sturdevant, SPD, Monroe
Issue: Whether a judge’s persistent and partisan efforts to require litigation on a recurrent issue on which the court of appeals had already reversed him, in an unpublished case in which the judge actively appeared as a party on the appeal, establishes disqualifying bias.
Holding: Bias not established: The judge intends to require litigation on the disputed issue in every case,
(State) Habeas Corpus – Procedural Requirements – Adequate Alternative Remedy
State ex rel. William E. Marberry v. Macht, 2003 WI 79, reversing 2002 WI App 133, 254 Wis. 2d 690, 648 N.W.2d 522
For Marberry: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding:
¶23. The extraordinary relief provided by the writ of habeas corpus is available only in limited circumstances and is subject to three prerequisites. Haas ,
Federal Habeas Procedure – Appellate – Certificate of Appealability – Prison / Jail Discipline
Clyde Piggie v. Cotton, 344 F.3d 674 (7th Cir. 2003)
Issue/Holding: Requirement of certificate of appealability doesn’t apply to habeas challenge to state disciplinary proceeding, citing Walker v. O’Brien, 216 F.3d 626 (7th Cir. 2002).
Rule reaffirmed: Edward D. Anderson v. Benik, No. 05-2323, 12/20/06 But for another circuit’s rejection of this approach, creating a potentially cert-worthy split,
Federal Habeas Procedure – Appellate – Certificate of Appealability – Untimely 2254 Petition
Terrance Bernard Davis v. Borgen, 349 F.3d 1027 ( 7th Cir. 03-2354, 11/20/03)
Issue/Holding: A certificate of appealability of dismissal of a habeas petition filed four years after the deadline is vacated:
To recap the statutory requirements: (1) A certificate of appealability may be issued only if the prisoner has at least one substantial constitutional question for appeal.
Plea-Withdrawal, Post-Sentencing – Procedure – Proof of Knowledge of Elements / Remedy for Lack of Proof<
State v. John A. Jipson, 2003 WI App 222
For Jipson: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding:
¶16. Jipson’s answers, while incriminating, have no bearing on the focus here. That is, the answers do not establish Jipson knew the State had to prove the purpose of the sexual contact was an element of the crime. The critical inquiry is whether Jipson otherwise knew at the time of entering his plea all of the essential elements of the offense so that it can be said he knowingly pled guilty to the crime.
Important Posts
Ahead in SCOW
Sign up
On Point is sponsored by Wisconsin State Public Defenders. All content is subject to public disclosure. Comments are moderated. If you have questions about this blog, please email [email protected].
On Point provides information (not legal advice) about important developments in the law. Please note that this information may not be up to date. Viewing this blog does not create an attorney-client relationship with the Wisconsin State Public Defender. Readers should consult an attorney for their legal needs.