Caniglia v. Strom, USSC No. 20-157, cert granted 11/20/20
Whether the “community caretaking” exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement extends to the home.
United States v. Cooley, USSC No. 19-1414, cert. granted 11-20-20
Whether the lower courts erred in suppressing evidence on the theory that a police officer of an Indian tribe lacked authority to temporarily detain and search respondent, a non-Indian, on a public right-of-way within a reservation based on a potential violation of state or federal law.
State v. George Steven Burch, 2019AP404-CR, certification granted 11/18/20; case activity (including briefs)
Issues presented (from the certification):
Did police violate Burch’s Fourth Amendment rights by:
- exceeding the scope of Burch’s consent to search his cell phone by downloading the phone’s entire contents, rather than only the text messages;
- unlawfully retaining the entire cell phone download after it completed its initial investigation and closing the case without charging Burch; and
- unlawfully conducting a second search of the cell phone download months after closing the initial investigation.
State v. Jordan Alexander Lickes, review of a published court of appeals decision granted 11/18/20; case activity (including briefs)
Issues presented (from the PfR):
Does the expungement statute’s requirement that a probationer have “satisfied the conditions of probation” also mean that the probationer must perfectly comply at all times with each and every rule of probation set by the probation agent?
When a circuit court chooses to hold a hearing and exercise discretion to determine whether a probationer who violated a rule set by his agent has nevertheless “satisfied the conditions of probation” so as to qualify for expungement, should the appellate court review the circuit court’s decision for an erroneous exercise of discretion?
When a circuit court makes factual findings concerning whether a probationer violated a condition of probation rendering him ineligible for expungement, must the appellate court uphold the finding in the absence of clear error?
State v. Jacob Richard Beyer, court of appeals certification granted 11-18-20, 2019AP1983; case activity (including briefs)
Issue presented (from the certification):
[W]hether the guilty-plea waiver rule applies when a defendant pleads not guilty to an offense, but stipulates to the inculpatory facts supporting each element of the offense, and explicitly agrees to a finding of guilt at a hearing before the circuit court at which no witness testifies.
State v. Daniel J. Van Linn, 2019AP1317, 11/17/20, District 3 (not recommended for publication), petition for review granted 4/27/21, affirmed, 3/22/22; case activity (including briefs)
Police found Van Linn injured and intoxicated near the scene of an accident, and an ambulance took him to the hospital for treatment. At the hospital Van Linn refused an officer’s request that consent to a blood draw; the officer, claiming exigency, ordered blood taken anyway. Van Linn moved to suppress and the court held there was no exigency, and accordingly suppressed the BAC results. Shortly thereafter, the district attorney asked the court to approve a subpoena of Van Linn’s treatment records from the hospital; the court issued the subpoena and the hospital turned over the records, which included the results of the hospital’s own blood test. Van Linn asked the court to suppress those as well, but it declined. He was convicted and appealed. [continue reading…]
State v. Frank P. Smogoleski, 2019AP1780-CR, District 2, 11/18/20 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The state wins its appeal of two circuit court orders, one excluding the use of preliminary hearing testimony of a witness who is now dead, the other excluding other-acts evidence. [continue reading…]
State v. Timothy M. Argall, 2020AP907-CR, District 2, 11/18/20 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Argall was arrested for OWI based on a plethora of evidence—viz., driving after dark without headlights, slurred speech, odor of alcohol, inability to follow questions or give direct answers, admission of drinking 4 to 6 beers, 0.201 PBT. His gripe, though, is with the pre-FST pat down that found a pot pipe in his pocket. Assuming it was invalid, the pat down certainly doesn’t invalidate the basis for detaining or arresting Argall for OWI. Nor does Argall develop any argument challenging the circuit court’s conclusion that he consented to the pat down. No wonder the court of appeals was “befuddled by this appeal.” (¶6).
