On Point

State v. Bruce E. Black, 2000 WI App 175, 238 Wis.2d 203, 617 N.W.2d 210
For Black: William E. Schmaal, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether the “collective knowledge” doctrine applies when the information in the possession of one police officer is not in fact communicated to another officer.

Holding: ¶17 n. 4:

(I)n order for the collective-information rule to apply, such information must actually be passed to the officer before he or she makes an arrest or conducts a search.

State v. Michael A. Sisk, 2001 WI App 182
For Sisk: Elvis Banks

Issue: Whether the police had reasonable suspicion to stop, based on information from a 911 call made from a payphone by an informant who provided nothing other than a name by way of identifying himself.

Holding:

¶8. Here, because the caller gave what he said was his name, the trial court erred in viewing the call as an anonymous one.

State v. Lawrence J. Fields, 2000 WI App 218, 239 Wis.2d 38, 619 N.W.2d 279
For Fields: Daniel Goggin

Issue: Whether the police stop of a car, merely because it had lingered at a stop sign for a few seconds, was supported by reasonable suspicion.

Holding: To ask the question is to answer it. This was, at least in the cop’s mind, a case of premature evasion.

State v. Roosevelt Williams, 2001 WI 21, on remand from U.S. S.Ct., 529 U.S. 1050 (2000), previously reported: 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: Whether the police had reasonable suspiciion to conduct a “protective search”

State v. James T. Fitzgerald, 2000 WI App 55, 233 Wis. 2d 584, 608 N.W.2d 391
For Fitzgerald: Daniel P. Dunn

Issue: Whether a probationer in custody under a probation hold is necessarily a “prisoner” within the battery by prisoner statute, Wis. Stat. § 940.20(1).

Holding: Because a “prisoner” is someone confined as a result of a violation of the law; and because probation rules and conditions have the force of law,

State v. Stephen L. Jensen, 2000 WI 84, 236 Wis. 2d 521, 613 N.W.2d 170, affirming unpublished decision
For Jensen: James L. Fullin, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue1: Whether the first degree reckless injury (§ 940.23(1)) element of “utter disregard for human life” requires proof of the actor’s subjective awareness of the risk of death.

Holding: “¶17 Although ‘utter disregard for human life’ clearly has something to do with mental state,

State v. Robert C. Knight, 2000 WI App 16, 232 Wis.2d 305, 606 N.W.2d 291
For Knight: Scott B. Taylor.

Issue: Whether the seizure of files earmarked for destruction by a disbarred attorney violated the fourth amendment.

Holding: The files, which the disbarred attorney had turned over to a third party for destruction, had been abandoned and therefore no search and seizure occurred within the meaning of the fourth amendment.

State v. Patrick E. Richter, 2000 WI 58, 235 Wis. 2d 524, 612 N.W.2d 29, reversing State v. Richter, 224 Wis. 2d 814, 592 N.W.2d 310 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Richter: Susan Alesia, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶29 There are four well-recognized categories of exigent circumstances that have been held to authorize a law enforcement officer’s warrantless entry into a home: 1) hot pursuit of a suspect,

State v. Rick R. Rome, 2000 WI App 243, 239 Wis.2d 491, 620 N.W.2d 225
For Rome: William E. Schmaal, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: Police entry into a home and subsequent seizure of drugs in a closet was justified under the emergency doctrine:

¶12 In State v. Pires, 55 Wis. 2d 597, 201 N.W.2d 153 (1972), the Wisconsin Supreme Court approved the emergency rule as an exception to the warrant requirement,

State v. Walter Horngren, 2000 WI App 177, 238 Wis.2d 347, 617 N.W.2d 508
For Horngren: James M. Weber

Issue/Holding1:

¶10 Horngren contends that the police entry, in response to a suicide threat, was made pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 51.15, “Emergency detention.” Therefore, he argues that the entry occurred while the officers were “engaging in traditional law enforcement duties,” not community caretaker duties. We disagree.