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.
First Amendment – Speech – Criminalized Threat
State v. Murle E. Perkins, 2001 WI 46, 243 Wis. 2d 141, 626 N.W.2d 762, reversing 2000 WI App 137, 237 Wis. 2d 313, 614 N.W.2d 25
For Perkins: William E. Schmaal, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue: Whether and to what extent threats are protected from prosecution under the first amendment.
Holding:
¶17 This court agrees with the State and the defendant that some threatening words are protected speech under the First Amendment.
Right to Be Present – Voir Dire
State v. George S. Tulley, 2001 WI App 236
For Tulley: Patrick M. Donnelly
Issue: Whether excluding defendant and his attorney from in camera voir dire of several jurors was reversible error.
Holding: A defendant has both constitutional and statutory rights to be present, with assistance of counsel, at voir dire, and the trial court therefore erred in excluding them from the in camera proceedings.
Expectation of Privacy — Property or Possessory Interest Necessary
State v. Derrick Benton, 2001 WI App 81
For Benton: James Kachelski.
Issue: Whether the defendant can challenge seizure of property from an auto where he claimed no ownership or possessory interest in either the auto or the seized property.
Holding:
¶11 Although the trial court upheld the search of the car in which Benton was riding as one incident to either an arrest or as an inventory search,
Double Jeopardy – Multiplicity: Judicial Estoppel Bar to Arguing
State v. Michael Johnson, 2001 WI App 105
For Johnson: David R. Karpe
Issue: Whether defendant’s partially successful trial strategy of defending against two counts of possession of intent to deliver of claiming personal use on one count and denial of any knowledge of the substance in the second count judicially estopped him from arguing on appeal that the two counts are multiplicitous.
Holding:
¶10.
Reasonable Suspicion – Stop – Basis – Unidentified Cell Phone Caller
Paul Rutzinski, 2001 WI 22, affirming unpublished opinion of court of appeals
For Rutzinski: Craig A. Mastantuono, Maureen Fitzgerald
Issue: Whether an unidentified motorist’s cell phone report of suspicious driving justified a stop.
Holding:
¶38 In sum, we hold that the tip in this case provided sufficient justification for an investigative stop of Rutzinski. First, the tip contained sufficient indicia of the informant’s reliability: the information in the tip exposed the informant to possible identification and,
Reasonable Suspicion – Stop – Basis – anonymous tip
State v. Roosevelt Williams, 2001 WI 21, on remand, 529 U.S. 1050 (2000), previous history: State v. Roosevelt Williams, 225 Wis. 2d 159, 591 N.W.2d 823 (1999); State v. Williams, 214 Wis. 2d 412, 570 N.W.2d 892 (Ct. App. 1997)
For Williams: Melinda Swartz, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate.
Issue: “(W)hether an anonymous tip containing a contemporaneous report of drug trafficking,
Reasonable Suspicion – Stop – Basis: “Drug Crime” Area, Lateness of Hour, Nervousness
State v. Christopher Gammons, 2001 WI App 36
For Gammons: Keith A. Findley, LAIP
Issue/Holding: Police did not have reasonable suspicion to continued detention for a routine traffic problem after the purpose of the stop was fulfilled:
¶21 In evaluating reasonable suspicion, we must examine whether all the facts, when taken together, could constitute a reasonable suspicion. State v. Allen,
Reasonable Suspicion – Stop – Basis – Automobile – Investigate Earlier Crime
State v. Alisha M. Olson, 2001 WI App 284
For Olson: Daniel P. Fay
Issue: Whether the police had reasonable suspicion to make a traffic stop to investigate the driver for a burglary two days earlier.
Holding:
¶8. In the present case, we find sufficient facts to give rise to a reasonable suspicion that Olson had committed a crime. The Waukesha County Sheriff’s Department did not pull Olson’s name out of a hat.
Reasonable Suspicion – Stop – Basis – Traffic Offense – Temporary License Sticker, Unseen by P.O.
State v. Christopher Gammons, 2001 WI App 36
For Gammons: Keith A. Findley, LAIP
Issue: Whether an officer may stop a car for not displaying a rear plate, when the car has a temporary license sticker which isn’t seen until after the stop.
Holding:
¶8 While the temporary license sticker in this case may be a better indicator of registration than the ‘license applied for’ sign in [State v.]Griffin[,
Reasonable Suspicion – Stop – Duration – Traffic Offense – Prolonged by Questioning / Seeking Consent to Search
State v. Lawrence A. Williams/State v. Antwon C. Mathews, 2002 WI 94, reversing 2001 WI App 249, 248 Wis. 2d 361, 635 N.W.2d 869
For Williams: Thomas E. Knothe
For Mathews: Peter J. Thompson
Issue: Whether the traffic stop was unnecessarily prolonged so as to amount to an illegal seizure and invalidate consent to search the car.
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.