Published 2005

State v. George Toland Ziedonis, 2005 WI App 249 For Ziedonis: Ellen Henak, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate Issue/Holding: Police, responding to a “loose animal” complaint became sufficiently alarmed by the possibility the dogs’ owner was in need of assistance that their warrantless entry was justified under the community caretaker doctrine: ¶27      Like in Ferguson, the police “utilized alternative… Read more

State v. George Toland Ziedonis, 2005 WI App 249 For Ziedonis: Ellen Henak, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶14      One such exception is the community caretaker function, which arises when the actions of the police are “totally divorced from the detection, investigation, or acquisition of evidence relating to the violation of a criminal statute.” State v. Anderson… Read more

State v. David J. Roberson, 2005 WI App 195, affirmed on other grounds, 2006 WI 80 For Roberson: Richard D. Martin, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate Issue/Holding: “(E)vidence acquired outside of the home after an in-home arrest in violation of Payton is not a product of the illegal governmental activity, if officers had probable cause to arrest developed apart from the illegal… Read more

State v. Shaun E. Kelley, 2005 WI App 199 For Kelley: Gregory Bates Issue/Holding: ¶13      Kelley also argues that the search violated the scope of consent. He contends that an accelerant and phone handset could not have been found under his bed and therefore that place should not have been searched. We disagree. … ¶14     … Read more

State v. Shaun E. Kelley, 2005 WI App 199 For Kelley: Gregory Bates Issue/Holding: ¶12      Kelley contends that the police should have disclosed that they had reason to believe he had child pornography in his apartment. We are not persuaded that the detectives’ failure to disclose all their suspicions invalidated an otherwise validly obtained consent… Read more

Brown County DHS v. Terrance M., 2005 WI App 57 Issue/Holding: ¶11. The trial court ruled and the County now argues that Terrance’s substitution request was untimely because it was not filed before “hearing of any preliminary contested matters” under Wis. Stat. § 801.58. Terrance argues the applicable statute is Wis. Stat. § 48.29, which… Read more

Brown County DHS v. Terrance M., 2005 WI App 57 Issue/Holding: Because TPR cases are generally a subset of custody cases; and because claim preclusion is available as a means of discouraging groundless requests for modification of custody, both claim and issue preclusion “may also be applied when the facts so require” in TPRs, ¶¶8-9… Read more