The court of appeals rejects an OWI defendant’s claim that the circuit court could did not have sufficient evidence of her impairment because the judge (it was a bench trial) was unqualified to conclude that her “medication caused her to be affected by alcohol in an atypical way.”
Just how did Strelchenko misuse his drone? Unfortunately, we do not know. He proceeded pro se and neglected to include a copy of the trial transcript in the appellate record. It is the appellant’s job to ensure that the record is sufficient for the court of appeals to review the issues. If he fails this task, the court of appeals assumes that the missing parts of the record support the circuit court’s decision. See State Bank of Hartland v. Arndt, 129 Wis. 2d 411, 425, 385 N.W.2d 219 (Ct. App. 1986). That’s what the court of appeals did here, and that is why Strelchenko lost.
Update: An On Point reader says if you want more information on how Strelchenko used the drone and what happened at trial, click here.
To terminate parental rights based on the “continuing CHIPS” ground, the jury had find that there was a substantial likelihood that JB would not meet the conditions for the safe return of her child within 9 months of the hearing. §48.415(2)(a). The circuit court admitted a social worker’s expert testimony on this issue, apparently without following §907.02 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmacueticals. The court of appeals assumed error but declared it harmless. Read more
“Due to the extremely cold, windy, icy, and snowy conditions” police moved McKeel approximately 8 miles from where he was stopped to a local police department so that McKeel had the “best opportunity” to complete field sobriety tests. (¶¶4-5). Moving McKeel this far did not transform the stop into an arrest. Read more
The circuit court properly exercised its discretion in denying a mistrial after the arresting officer’s testified that, having completed the field sobriety tests, he “administered a preliminary breath test, PBT.” (¶4). Read more
A defendant is denied due process at sentencing where the author of his PSI is married to the DA who prosecuted him. State v. Suchocki. Ditto where a counselor who assessed the defendant for his PSI also treated his victim. State v. Stafford. In these situations, bias on the part of the PSI writer or counselor is implied as a matter of law. But here the court of appeals found no “implied bias” where the author of Hartleben’s PSI worked with probation agents who were Hartleben’s victims in an earlier case. Read more
Bowe argues that standard field sobriety tests constitute a 4th Amendment search. Thus, law enforcement needs probable cause, not reasonable suspicion, before asking a suspect to perform them. The court of appeals notes that it has twice rejected this argument based on County of Jefferson v. Renz. It meets the same fate in this appeal. Read more