On Point

State v. Matthew J. Trecroci, Ryan J. Frayer, Ronnie J. Frayer, Scott E. Oberst, Amy L. Wicks, 2001 WI App 126
For defendants: Robert R. Henak

Issue: Whether warrantless police entry of a stairway in a multiple unit building was lawful.

Holding: Existence of reasonable expectation of privacy in a stairway leading to the upper levels of a dwelling is decided case-by-case, rather than under bright-line rule.

State v. Kelsey C.R., 2001 WI 54
For Kelsey C. R.: Susan Alesia, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether the police had reasonable suspicion to frisk Kelsey, a juvenile, before placing her in a squad car and transporting her home at her mother’s request.

Holding: The most significant feature of this fractured ruling is majority support for the principle that there is no “blanket-rule that a police officer may frisk a person just because the officer is going to place that person inside a police vehicle.”

State v. Robert F. Hart, 2001 WI App 283
For Hart: John Deitrich

Issue: Whether the need to transport in a police vehicle a person, who is not in custody, is itself an exigency justifying a pat-down search for weapons.

Holding:

¶17. … With five members of the court declining to adopt a per ser rule, the law in Wisconsin is that the need to transport a person in a police vehicle is not,

State v. Tronnie M. Dismuke, 2001 WI 75, 244 Wis. 2d 457, 628 N.W.2d 791, reversing and remanding, 2000 WI App 198, 238 Wis. 2d 577, 617 N.W.2d 862
For Dismuke: Richard D. Martin, William S. Coleman, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate<

Issue: Whether a defendant may have to bear costs of being produced from prison for court appearances.

Holding:

¶4 We reverse.

State v. Eddie McAttee, 2001 WI App 262
For McAttee: Russell D. Bohach

Issue: Whether the Riverside probable cause finding was tainted by a factual misrepresentation (specifically, that McAttee had been implicated by a “coconspirator”) in the police report submitted in support of continued detention.

Holding: Though describing the informant as a coconspirator “may have been legally inexact, it also may have accurately conveyed the police’s understanding,

State v. Ashley B. Steele, 2001 WI App 160, PFR filed 6/25/01
For Steele: Christopher William Rose

Issue: Whether sentencing eligibility for “boot camp” is determined by bright-line statutory guidelines, or by exercise of trial court discretion.

Holding:

¶12. While an offender must meet the eligibility requirements of Wis. Stat. § 302.045(2) to participate in the challenge incarceration program, pursuant to Wis.

State v. Bill Paul Marquardt, 2001 WI App 219, PFR filed 9/20/01
For Marquardt: James B. Connell

Issue: Whether evidence seized under a warrant defective because unsupported by probable cause may be admissible under the good-faith doctrine.

Holding: Given that, subsequent to trial-level litigation, the supreme court recognized the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule, in State v. Eason, 2001 WI 98,

State v. Bill Paul Marquardt, 2001 WI App 219, PFR filed 9/20/01
For Marquardt: James B. Connell

Issue: Whether the search warrant was supported by probable cause.

Holding:

¶18. …. The State points to several facts in the affidavits: (1) Mary’s telephone was off the hook the day she was killed, suggesting “that the perpetrator had been inside the residence”; (2) Mary was shot and stabbed,

State v. Cherise A. Raflick, 2001 WI 129
For Raflik: Michael J. Fitzgerald, Dean A. Strang

Issue/Holding:

¶1. This case requires us to decide whether suppression is the proper remedy when a telephonic application for a search warrant is not recorded in accordance with Wis. Stat. § 968.12(3)(d)1, and when the factual basis for the warrant is reconstructed in an ex parte hearing after the warrant has been executed.

State v. William Koller, 2001 WI App 253, PFR filed
For Koller: Peter M. Koneazny, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue: Whether the trial court’s response to a jury request to see a written report and a transcript of a witness’s testimony — that these items were “not available” — without first seeking defense input was error.

Holding: The defendant’s presence is required at any critical stage,