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
Defense win: slight lane deviation combined with leaving bar in early morning not reasonable suspicion
State v. John William Lane, 2021AP327, 8/19/21, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
An officer saw Lane departing a bar around 2:10 in the morning. He followed him in his squad car and eventually pulled him over, and eventually arrested him for OWI. The tailing and the stop were recorded on the squad car’s camera. The circuit court concluded the officer’s observations didn’t create reasonable suspicion for the stop, and the court of appeals now affirms.
Ah, technology!
Turns out ShotSpotter maybe ain’t all it’s cracked up to be, according to this article. (There’s a case pending in the state supreme court involving an investigatory stop based in part on a ShotSpotter alert; see here.) On the other hand, those small nifty cameras everywhere—on cell phones, doorbells, on police officers themselves—are putting paid […]
Moving driver to nearby police station for field sobriety tests was reasonable
State v. Caleb James Watson, 2021AP355-CR, District 2, 8/25/21 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Taking Watson to a local police station to perform field sobriety tests (FSTs) wasn’t unreasonable and thus didn’t violate the Fourth Amendment.
Circuit court’s finding of refusal upheld
State v. Derek V. Schroth, 2021AP733, District 2, 8/25/21 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs) Schroth challenges the probable cause to arrest him for OWI and the finding that he refused a blood draw. There were ample facts for probable cause. (¶¶3-8, 13-15). And though the arresting officer couldn’t recall whether Schroth […]
COA: exigency supported decision to seize cell phone
State v. Jeremy J. Deen, 2020AP1399, 8/24/21, District 3 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Police received a tip that an IP address associated with Deen’s home had uploaded child pornography. They went to the home and Deen let them in. While inside, officers noted Deen was carrying a knife, so they frisked him, which turned up a cell phone. In response to officers’ questions about child porn, Deen made some equivocal statements about whether there might be any on the phone, and the officers took it. The court of appeals holds that the possibility that Deen would hide or destroy the phone or delete the images it might contain supplied sufficient exigent circumstances that the police could seize it without a warrant.
COA rejects IAC claim and finds no new factor regarding sex offender registry
State v. James A. Carroll, Jr., 2021AP375, 8/26/21, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Carroll was charged with second-degree sexual assault; he ultimately took a deal and pleaded to fourth-degree. The circuit court required him to register as a sex offender for 15 years after the end of his supervision. The court of appeals rejects Carroll’s claims that his counsel’s deficiencies led to the plea, and that new factors justified modifying his sentence to remove the registration requirement.
COA: visiting a child is exercising “physical placement”; can be a crime
State v. Angelina Hansen, 2019AP1105, 7/27/21, District 3 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Hansen’s triplet fourth-graders were in the legal custody of their father; he also had primary physical placement of the children. The family court’s order provided that she was to have “supervised placement only” with certain conditions, for two to four hours per week. One day, Ms. Hansen went to the lunch room of the school the children attended and sat with them while they ate. She said wanted to “hug them and tell them [she] loved them.” The court of appeals now holds that this conduct was an unlawful exercise of “physical placement” over the children, such that Ms. Hansen’s conviction for contempt of the family court order stands.
COA holds discovery violation harmless, rejects spoliation claim
State v. Jacky Lee, 2020AP1633, 7/27/21, District 1 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The state arrested Lee for second-offense OWI and PAC violations. The intoximeter breath test he took at the police department was video-recorded. However, due to the state’s delay in charging Lee, he did not request the video until it had already been recorded over, consistent with the department’s practice of keeping such videos for 3-6 months unless there’s been a request to preserve them.
COA holds Confrontation violation harmless
State v. Oscar C. Thomas, 2021 WI App 55; Review granted 1/11/22; affirmed 2/21/23; case activity (including briefs)
This is the appeal from Thomas’s second conviction at trial for the false imprisonment, sexual assault and murder of his wife. (The first conviction was ultimately undone by the Seventh Circuit, which held that his counsel had been ineffective for failing to seek out certain expert testimony.) Thomas raises three issues. He claims he was convicted of the sexual assault count in violation of the corroboration rule, because the only evidence it occurred was his own confession. He also says all three convictions were obtained in violation of his right to confrontation, as the state introduced a hearsay lab report concerning DNA evidence during cross-examination of his expert. And he argues one of the jurors was objectively biased because she at least believed she was a cousin of one state’s witness. The court rejects all three claims.
Court of appeals reverses discretionary juvenile non-waiver in a way that seems pretty discretionary
State v. X.S., 2021AP419, 7/20/21, District 1 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Xander (a pseudonym) shot several people in a well-known incident at the Mayfair Mall in Wauwatosa. The juvenile court concluded that it was the right forum for the case and denied the state’s motion to waive the matter into adult criminal court under WIS. STAT. § 938.18(5). The court of appeals reverses. This is a one-judge decision and so it makes no binding law. What it does instead is pay brief lip service to the deference it owes the lower court’s discretionary call before going on to recite–with a prosecutorial tenor–its own view of how that discretion ought to have been exercised.
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.