Racine County Human Services Dep’t v. C.C., 2017AP750, District 2, 10/11/17 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The evidence presented at the fact-finding hearing in C.C.’s TPR proceeding was sufficient to establish that she failed to assume parental responsibility under § 48.415(6). [continue reading…]
City of New Richmond v. Warren Wayne Slocum, 2016AP1887, District 3, 10/11/17 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Slocum unsuccessfully challenges the sufficiency of the evidence used to find he violated a New Richmond municipal ordinance, § 50.88(a)(1), which tracks § 947.01(1). [continue reading…]
State v. Damien Markeith Divone Scott, 2017 WI App 74; case activity (including briefs)
In this case of first impression in Wisconsin, the court of appeals holds that the stop of a car at a police checkpoint was justified by the “special needs” of law enforcement. [continue reading…]
State v. C.L.K., 2017AP1413 & 2017AP1414, District 1, 10/10/17 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication), petition for review granted 3/14/18, reversed, 2019 WI 14; case activity
The circuit court directed a verdict in favor of the state during the grounds phase of the TPR proceedings against C.L.K. without allowing him the opportunity to present evidence. The court of appeals agrees this was error, but holds the error was harmless. [continue reading…]
M.R.B. v. S.S., 2017AP1217-1219, 10/5/17, District 4 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
This slim opinion delivers hard blows to a father resisting the termination of his parental rights. They concern circuit court competency, a request for a continuance, and the sufficiency of evidence in determining whether termination was in the best interests of his children. The court of appeals’ reasoning on the last point supplies fodder for a petition for review. [continue reading…]
State v. Dustin M. Sherman, 2016AP2225, 10/5/17, District 4, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Sherman argued that police lacked reasonable suspicion to conduct the traffic stop that led to his refusal to submit to a blood alcohol test. The officer stopped him for a violation of the statute requiring a tail lamp to emit a red light plainly visible from a distance of 500 feet to the rear. §347.13(1). When asked how close he had to get before he could see Sherman’s tail lamp, the officer said “I couldn’t tell you but it was less than 500 feet.” [continue reading…]
State v. Michael J. Mansfield, 2016AP2423-CR, 10/3/17, District 3 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Mansfield argued police didn’t have reasonable suspicion to detain him based on a tip from an anonymous Turtle Lake Casino employee. The court of appeals holds the tipster should be treated as a citizen informant and, under the standard for citizen informants, the tip provided reasonable suspicion. [continue reading…]
