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.
Due Process – Notice of Charge – Amendment of Information at Close of Case<
State v. Davon R. Malcom, 2001 WI App 291, PFR filed 11/27/01
For Malcom: John D. Lubarsky, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue: Whether the trial court properly amended the information, after close of evidence, to add a charge of keeping a place “which is resorted to by persons using controlled substances” to the charge of using the same place to manufacture, keep or deliver controlled substances (both charges being alternatives under § 961.41(2).
Due Process – Parole – “Presumptive” MR Liberty Interest
State ex rel. Michael J. Gendrich v. Litscher, 2001 WI App 163
Issue: Whether the “presumptive mandatory release date” under § 302.11(1g) creates a liberty interest in parole protected by due process.
Holding: Prisoners sentenced for a “serious felony” between April 21, 1994, and December 31, 1999, are given a “presumptive” MR date. Discretionary parole does not create a due process-protected liberty interest, while mandatory release does.
Substantive Due Process – Automatic SVP commitment to secure confinement
State v. Ronald Ransdell, 2001 WI App 202, PFR filed 8/27/01
For Ransdell: Ellen Henak, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate
Issue: Whether the automatic initial commitment to institutional care provision, § 980.06, on its face violates substantive due process.
Holding: A person challenging the constitutionality of a statute must show its infirmity beyond reasonable doubt; a statute restricting liberty implicates a “strict-scrutiny” test. ¶5. Applying this test,
Ex Post Facto – Continuing Offense
State v. Alfredo Ramirez, 2001 WI App 158, PFR filed 7/11/01
For Ramirez: Elizabeth A. Cavendish-Sosinski
Issue: Whether § 943.201(2) creates a continuing offense such that, as applied to Ramirez, it violated the ex post facto clause because the statute was promulgated after he commenced the activity that formed the basis for the charge.
Holding:
¶18. We hold that Ramirez obtained money in the form of wages,
First Amendment – Overbreadth – Injunction – Prostitution-Related Activity
City of Milwaukee v. Tanya M. Bean, et al., 2001 WI App 258, PFR filed 11/8/01
For Bean: Jerome F. Buting, Pamela S. Moorshead
Issue1: Whether prostitution activities in the area encompassed by the injunction were shown sufficiently to constitute a nuisance.
Holding:
¶13. Although it is true, as the appellants argue, that the infusion of prostitution in the affected areas can, on one level at least,
Equal Protection – Sex Offender Registration – Juvenile – False Imprisonment
State v. Joseph E.G., 2001 WI App 29, 240 Wis. 2d 481, 623 N.W.2d 137
For Joseph E.G.: Susan E. Alesia, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue: Whether § 301.45(1m) (1997-98) violates equal protection and substantive due process in failing to excuse juveniles convicted of false imprisonment from sex offender registration.
Holding:
¶12 In contrast to the facts that could relieve an offender from registration for those crimes enumerated in WIS.
Expectation of Privacy – Stairway, Multiple Unit Building
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.
Reasonable Suspicion – Frisk – Placing Person in Police Squad
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.”
Reasonable Suspicion – Frisk – Placing Person in Police Squad
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,
Costs — Order to Produce
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.
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.