Police arrested Gajewski in the curtilage of her home without a warrant and exigent circumstances. While this makes the arrest unlawful, the evidence obtained from the arrest is not subject to suppression because police had probable cause to arrest her. [continue reading…]
Police searched Moore for speeding and after detecting the odor of what the officer believed to be marijuana searched Moore. (¶¶2-9). Distinguishing State v. Secrist, 224 Wis. 2d 201, 589 N.W.2d 387 (1999), the court of appeals affirms the circuit court’s suppression order, holding that the odor of marijuana, by itself or coupled with other information, did not provide probable cause to arrest Moore and search him incident to arrest. [continue reading…]
A telephonic warrant may be valid even if the court did not arrange for an electronic or written recording of the officer’s telephone call to be made. [continue reading…]
Langlade County v. D.J.W., 2020 WI 41, ¶3, 391 Wis. 2d 231, 942 N.W.2d 277, held that “going forward circuit courts in recommitment proceedings are to make specific factual findings with reference to the subdivision paragraph of Wis. Stat. § 51.20(1)(a)2. on which the recommitment is based.” Deciding an issue addressed in the dissenting opinion in Sheboygan County v. M.W., 2022 WI 40, the court of appeals holds the failure to comply with D.J.W.‘s findings requirement can be a harmless error and was harmless in this case.
A parent’s failure to raise the issue of the circuit court’s personal jurisdiction as a defense during the TPR proceeding means the issue was waived. [continue reading…]
Schwersinske concedes the lawfulness of the initial stop of the car he was driving for crossing the centerline of Highway 151. But he argues, unsuccessfully, that the officer didn’t have reasonable suspicion to extend the stop to have Schwersinske do field sobriety tests. [continue reading…]
Under § 48.415(intro.), termination of parental rights to children subject to the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) requires, in addition to proof of one or more grounds for termination under subs. (1) to (10), proof of “active efforts,” as defined in § 48.028(4)(e)2., to prevent the breakup of the family as well as the unsuccess of those efforts. S.S.M., whose children are not subject to the ICWA, argues that the statute’s failure to require proof of active efforts in all TPR cases violates the right to equal protection the statute because it gives Indian parents greater protection from having their parental rights involuntarily terminated than it does non-Indian parents. The court of appeals rejects the claim.
Under the long-standing test for probable cause, Keenan-Becht’s arrest was lawful. [continue reading…]