Q. Vagueness

County ordinance prohibiting squealing of tires not unconstitutionally vague, so traffic stop based on suspicion of violation of ordinance was reasonable

July 28, 2013

State v. Michael E. Mauermann, 2012AP2568-CR, District 4, 7/25/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity Iowa County Ordinance § 600.08 provides that “[n]o person shall operate a motor vehicle so as to make any loud, disturbing or unnecessary noise in or about any public street, alley, park […]

Read the full article →

SCOW affirms convictions of praying parents

July 9, 2013

State v. Neumann, 2011AP1044 and 2011AP1105, on certification from the court of appeals; case activity; majority opinion by C.J. Abrahamson. In a 94-page decision, including a lone dissent by Justice Prosser, the Supreme Court of Wisconsin has affirmed the 2nd degree reckless homicide convictions of Dale and Leilani Neumann for […]

Read the full article →

TPR – constitutionality of child abuse grounds under Wis. Stat. § 48.415(5); propriety of summary judgment

March 10, 2013

Racine County v. Renee D., 2012AP1974, District 2, 2/20/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity Wis. Stat. § 48.415(5) is not unconstitutionally vague and does not violate due process As applied to Renee D., the two elements for the “child abuse” ground under § 48.415(5) are: 1) […]

Read the full article →

Vagrancy (Begging), § 947.02(4) – Vague and Overbroad

November 20, 2012

State v. Bradley S. Johnson, Outagamie Co. Circ. Ct. No. 12CM495 circuit court decision; case activity Panhandling prosecution under § 947.02(4) is dismissed with prejudice because the vagrancy statute is unconstitutional under first amendment analysis: panhandling (“begging”) is a form of protected speech and its criminalization under § 947.02(4) is fatally vague and overbroad. State […]

Read the full article →

TPR – Default Judgment as to Grounds – Sufficiency of Evidence; § 48.415(6) – Constitutional Challenge, Vagueness

February 23, 2012

Dane Co. DHS v. Sophia S., 2011AP2639, District 4, 2/23/12 court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Sophia S.: Faun M. Moses; case activity Although the parent isn’t required to object to the sufficiency of evidence adduced in support of a default judgment on grounds for termination (the court rejecting the […]

Read the full article →

TPR – Constitutionality, § 48.415(6)

February 8, 2012

Chippewa County Dept. of Human Services v. James A., 2011AP2613, District 3, 2/7/12 court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for James A.: Susan E. Alesia, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity ¶18      James does not allege Wis. Stat. § 48.415(6) implicates a First Amendment right.  Therefore, the threshold question is whether James’ conduct plainly […]

Read the full article →

Distribution of Harmful Material to Children, § 948.11(2)(am) – Internet Chat Room Communication is “Verbal” Communication, within Statute

February 18, 2007

State v. Shawn B. Ebersold, 2007 WI App 232 For Ebersold: Lester A. Pines Issue: Whether message sent via Internet chat room supports prosecution for § 948.11(2)(am), verbally communicating harmful material to child. Holding: ¶9    In this case, the parties dispute whether Wis. Stat. § 948.11(2)(am) prohibits communication of a harmful […]

Read the full article →

Representations Depicting Nudity, § 942.09 – Sufficiency of Notice of Element of “Reasonable Expectation of Privacy”

February 13, 2006

State v. Mark E. Nelson, 2006 WI App 124, PFR filed 6/22/06 For Nelson: Robert R. Henak; Amelia L. Bizzaro Issue: Whether the phrase “reasonable expectation of privacy” in § 942.09 is unconstitutionally vague, where the conduct involved videotaping women in a second-floor bathroom in their own house. Holding: ¶39      However, this […]

Read the full article →

Gambling, § 945.03(5) — Constitutionality — Vagueness Challenge

February 13, 1998

State v. Lester E. Hahn, 221 Wis. 2d 670, 586 N.W.2d 5 (Ct. App. 1998) For Hahn: Bruce Elbert Issue/Holding: The meaning of “gambling machine” is sufficiently well-understood as to survive a vagueness challenge. (The court reserves whether “contrivance” might be vague when applied to facts not raised by this case.)

Read the full article →