On review of published court of appeals decision; case activity
Issue (composed by On Point)
Did the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule apply to a search of a home conducted in reliance on a search warrant that was itself based on a search by a drug-sniffing dog that violated Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. ___, 133 S. Ct. 1409 (2013)?
On review of a court of appeals summary disposition; case activity
Issue (composed by On Point)
Did the circuit court’s violation of Harrison’s right to substitution under § 971.20 deprive the circuit court of jurisdiction over the case and render the judgment void, or can the violation be deemed to be harmless error?
The Wisconsin Supreme Court is revisiting State v. Forbush, 2011 WI 25, 332 Wis. 2d 620, 796 N.W2d 741, a splintered decision (4 different rationales) with an impenetrable rule. In this case, the State obtained two statements from the defendant after he had appeared at arraignment with appointed counsel. The issue is whether the State violated his Sixth Amendment rights.
On review of published court of appeals decisions: Alger, 2013 WI App 148; Knipfer, 2014 WI App 9; case activity: Alger; Knipfer
Issues (composed by On Point)
Does the filing of a petition for discharge or supervised release under ch. 980 after the effective date of the adoption of 2011 Wisconsin Act 2 “commence” an action or proceeding such that the Daubert standard for expert witness testimony applies to the discharge or supervised release proceeding?
If the filing of a discharge or supervised release petition after the effective date of Act 2 does not commence a new proceeding, does it violate due process or equal protection to refuse to apply the Daubert standard to the proceedings on those petitions?
Review of a published court of appeals decision; case activity
Issues (composed by On Point)
Whether a juvenile “refused to respond or cooperate” during a portion of a custodial interrogation if it was going to be recorded, such that § 938.31(3)(c)1. allowed the interrogating officers to turn off the recording device.
Whether an error in failing to record a portion of the custodial interrogation requires exclusion of the statements that were recorded.
State v. Megan A. Padley, 2014 WI App 65; case activity
The implied consent statute that allows an officer to ask for a driver for a blood sample when the officer lacks probable cause to arrest for OWI but has “reason to believe” the driver committed a traffic violation, § 343.305(3)(ar)2., is not facially unconstitutional. In addition, Padley’s consent to the blood draw in this case was voluntary. Finally, the police had the requisite “reason to believe” that Padley had committed a traffic violation and, thus, the deputy could rely on § 343.305(3)(ar)2. to put to her the choice of consent to a blood draw or automatic penalties.
Yes, you read that headline correctly! This happened in Ohio. In case you missed it, here is the ABA Journal’s story.
State v. Andrew J. Matasek, 2014 WI 27, 5/23/14, affirming a published court of appeals decision; case activity
Section 973.015 provides that a circuit court “may order at the time of sentencing that the record be expunged upon successful completion of the sentence . . .” SCOW now clarifies that a court must decide expunction at sentencing. Circuit court practices varied, so this decision clarifies the law and sets the stage for (possibly) a bigger battle over Wisconsin’s expunction statute.
