by admin
on February 16, 2017
Dane County D.H.S. v. J.B., 2016AP2422, District 4, 2/16/17 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
To terminate parental rights based on the “continuing CHIPS” ground, the jury had find that there was a substantial likelihood that JB would not meet the conditions for the safe return of her child within 9 months of the hearing. §48.415(2)(a). The circuit court admitted a social worker’s expert testimony on this issue, apparently without following §907.02 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmacueticals. The court of appeals assumed error but declared it harmless. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on February 16, 2017
State v. Dane C. McKeel, 2016AP884-CR, District 4, 2/16/17 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
“Due to the extremely cold, windy, icy, and snowy conditions” police moved McKeel approximately 8 miles from where he was stopped to a local police department so that McKeel had the “best opportunity” to complete field sobriety tests. (¶¶4-5). Moving McKeel this far did not transform the stop into an arrest. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on February 15, 2017
City of New Berlin v. Bryon R. Hrin, 2016AP239, District 2, 2/15/17 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The circuit court properly exercised its discretion in denying a mistrial after the arresting officer’s testified that, having completed the field sobriety tests, he “administered a preliminary breath test, PBT.” (¶4). [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on February 15, 2017
State v. Charles J. Hartleben, 2016AP1066-CR, District 3, 2/14/17 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
A defendant is denied due process at sentencing where the author of his PSI is married to the DA who prosecuted him. State v. Suchocki. Ditto where a counselor who assessed the defendant for his PSI also treated his victim. State v. Stafford. In these situations, bias on the part of the PSI writer or counselor is implied as a matter of law. But here the court of appeals found no “implied bias” where the author of Hartleben’s PSI worked with probation agents who were Hartleben’s victims in an earlier case. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on February 15, 2017
Village of Ashwaubenon v. Mark J. Bowe, 2016AP594, 2/14/17, District 3 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Bowe argues that standard field sobriety tests constitute a 4th Amendment search. Thus, law enforcement needs probable cause, not reasonable suspicion, before asking a suspect to perform them. The court of appeals notes that it has twice rejected this argument based on County of Jefferson v. Renz. It meets the same fate in this appeal. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on February 15, 2017
State v. D.P.V., 2016AP2037, District 1, 2/14/17 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
A circuit court does not have the authority to stay an order terminating parental rights. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on February 15, 2017
State v. Eric M. Doule, 2016AP1146-CR, District 3, 2/14/17 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The record supports the conclusion that Doule voluntarily consented to a blood draw after he was arrested for OWI. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on February 14, 2017
State v. Rozerick E. Mattox, 2017 WI 9, on certification from the court of appeals, 2015AP158-CR, 2/14/17; case activity (including briefs)
S.D. was found dead in circumstances strongly suggestive of a drug overdose. The police summoned the medical examiner, who eventually performed an autopsy. The examiner sent samples from S.D.’s body to a lab in another state for toxicology testing, which revealed the presence of chemicals indicating a heroin overdose. Mattox, eventually charged with delivering the fatal heroin, claims his Sixth Amendment confrontation right was violated when the state introduced the toxicology report through the medical examiner, rather than the lab analyst who performed the testing.
[continue reading…]
{ }
