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.
Important posts
Ahead in SCOW
Sign up
Reasonable Suspicion – Frisk – High-Crime Area, et al.
State v. Tartorius Allen, 226 Wis.2d 66, 593 N.W.2d 504 (Ct. App. 1999) For Allen: Steven D. Phillips, SPD, Madison Appellate. Holding: A frisk is an intrusion additional to the stop, and requires additional justification about the presence of a weapon, which the court finds: Allen and his companion being in a high-crime area, standing […]
Costs – jail assessment – § 302.46(1) – fine or forfeiture required
State v. Lisa A. Carter, 229 Wis. 2d 200, 598 N.W.2d 619 (Ct. App. 1999) For Carter: Paul G. LaZotte. Issue/Holding: The jail assessment in §§ 302.46(1) & 814.60(2)(ag) is contingent on imposition of a fine or forfeiture. Section 814.60(2)(ag), STATS., provides that “[i]n addition to any fine imposed, a defendant shall be required to pay any … [j]ail assessment […]
Costs – payment for sexual assault examination
State v. Daniel E. Rohe, 230 Wis.2d 294, 602 N.W.2d 125 (Ct. App. 1999) For Rohe: Charles B. Vetzner, SPD, Madison Appellate. Issue: Whether costs for a sexual assault examination were properly taxable, where the examination neither produced any results nor was used at trial. Holding: Because the examination was part of the state’s investigation […]
Costs – allocated per count, § 814.60(1)
State v. Lisa A. Carter, 229 Wis. 2d 200, 598 N.W.2d 619 (Ct. App. 1999) For Carter: Paul G. LaZotte Issue/Holding: The $20 fee for the clerk of court under § 814.60(1) is allocated on a per-count, rather than per-case, basis.
Suppression Hearing – Burden of Production
State v. Frederick G. Jackson, 229 Wis. 2d 328, 600 N.W.2d 39 (Ct. App. 1999) For Jackson: Allan D. Krezminski Holding: Jackson failed his burden of production that the state violated his rights (more concretely: unless the hospital personnel were acting as state’s agents, there would be no governmental interference with his rights under the fourth […]
Allocution – Generally
State v. James C. Lindsey, 203 Wis. 2d 423, 554 N.W.2d 215 (Ct. App. 1996) For Lindsey: Park M. Drescher Issue/Holding: It is undisputed that the trial court at the sentencing hearing erred when it did not afford Lindsey the right of allocution provided by § 972.14(2), Stats. …First, we conclude that because § 972.14(2), […]
Warrants – No-Knock Rule – Unoccupied Premises
State v. Dennis Moslavac, 230 Wis. 2d 338, 602 N.W.2d 150 (Ct. App. 1999) For Moslavac: Michael S. Holzman. Issue/Holding: The knock-and-announce rule does not apply when the target premises are unoccupied. Police have authority to forcibly execute a search warrant when the premises are unoccupied. It follows that the knock-and-announce rule doesn’t apply to […]
Expectation of Privacy — Mail, Prior to Delivery
State v. Domingo G. Ramirez, 228 Wis.2d 561, 598 N.W.2d 247 (Ct. App. 1999) For Ramirez: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate. Holding: When the state searches mail prior to delivery to a residence, and the addressee is not a resident, that person has a (“minimal”) burden of establishing some reasonable expectation of privacy in the […]
Expectation of Privacy — Prison inmate, strip search.
Tayr Kilaab Al Ghashiyah (Kahn) v. McCaughtry, 230 Wis.2d 587, 602 N.W.2d 307 (Ct. App. 1999) For Kahn: Walter W. Stern. Issue: Whether a prison inmate may be strip-searched, under the fourth amendment, upon being taken to or from segregation. Holding: “(W)e conclude that a prison inmate in segregation status does not possess a reasonable expectation […]
Forfeiture — Pre-existing Security Interest
State v. Robert E. Frankwick, 229 Wis.2d 406, 599 N.W.2d 893 (Ct. App. 1999) For Frankwick: Wendy A. Patrickus Issue/Holding: Frankwick’s truck was ordered seized and forfeited, per § 346.65(6), following OWI convictions. However, someone had perfected a lien, the day before the convictions, and the trial court voided the lien after concluding that it had […]
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.