Follow Us

Facebooktwitterrss
≡ Menu

1. Constitutional issues

On Point is pleased to present a guest post by Attorney Adam Welch of Tracy Wood and Associates. The law firm recently persuaded Dane County Circuit Court Judge William Hanrahan to declare Wis. Stat. § 346.67 facially unconstitutional and to grant their motion to dismiss a felony Hit and Run—Injury complaint. Judge Hanrahan issued an oral… Read More

{ 2 comments }

State v. Ernesto E. Lazo Villamil, 2017 WI 74, 7/6/17, affirming a published court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs) A few years ago the legislature set out to create a graduated penalty scheme for operating after revocation offenses, but it bungled the job and ended up creating misdemeanor and felony penalties for the offense… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Ernesto E. Lazo Villamil, 2016 WI App 61, petitions for review and cross-review granted 1/9/2017, affirmed 2017 WI 74, ; case activity (including briefs) Lazo Villamil was convicted and sentenced for operating after revocation and causing death under § 343.44, one of the provisions of which says that the offense is both a misdemeanor and a… Read More

{ 0 comments }

On review of a court of appeals certification; case activity (including briefs) Issue (from certification) This appeal presents a single recurring issue: whether provisions in Wisconsin’s implied consent law authorizing a warrantless blood draw from an unconscious suspect violate the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. More specifically, the issue is whether the “implied… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. David W. Howes, 2014AP1870-CR, 1/28/16, District 4; certification granted 4/7/16, reversed, 2017 WI 18; case activity (including briefs) Issue: This appeal presents a single recurring issue: whether provisions in Wisconsin’s implied consent law authorizing a warrantless blood draw from an unconscious suspect violate the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. More specifically, the issue… Read More

{ 2 comments }

State v. Michael R. Luedtke, 2014 WI App 79, petition for review granted 10/15/14, affirmed, 2015 WI 42 (posts here and here); case activity Section 346.63(1)(am), which prohibits operating a motor vehicle with a detectable amount of a restricted controlled substance in the blood, does not violate due process by failing to require proof that the defendant knowingly ingested the… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Stephen D. Harmon, 2006 WI App 214, PFR filed 10/26/06 For Harmon: Timothy A. Provis Issue/Holding: The § 346.67(1) requirement that a driver provide name, address, vehicle registration number, and driver’s license “to the person struck” does not violate the 5thamendment under controlling authority of California v. Byers, 402 U.S. 426 (1971), notwithstanding that the statute… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Joseph L. Smet, 2005 WI App 263 For Smet: Christopher A. Mutschler Issue/Holding: Proof of “impairment” is not a necessary element of § 346.63, ¶¶12-16. Section 346.63(1)(am) (driving under influence of detectable amount of THC, regardless of impairment) is constitutional as against police power, due process, and equal protection attack, ¶¶6… Read More

{ 0 comments }