Milwaukee County v. T.L.T, 2020AP426, District 1, 5/18/21 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
Two court-appointed examiners failed to file their reports on whether T.L.T. should be recommitted 48 hours before her final hearing. Trial counsel moved to dismiss arguing that the violation of §51.20(10)(b)’s 48-hour rule deprived the circuit court of competency to adjudicate the case. The circuit court denied the motion, and without the defense’s agreement, adjourned the case so that counsel could review the reports before the hearing. T.L.T. appealed but the court of appeals dismissed her appeal as moot. [continue reading…]
{ }
State v. Douglas J. Richer, 2019AP2024, 5/18/21, District 3 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Douglas Richer was charged in two related cases in two counties; he reached a deal with the state wherein he’d plead to just one count in Eau Claire and there’d be a joint sentencing recommendation. The plea colloquy was a thorough one; Richer expressed dissatisfaction about various aspects of the prosecution but made it very clear that he wanted to plead no-contest. After a number of clarifications the circuit court eventually accepted the plea and found Richer guilty. During sentencing (which was part of the same hearing as the plea), the prosecutor and the court took umbrage at some of Mr. Richer’s statements and, at the state’s suggestion, the court said it was “withdrawing” Richer’s plea. Richer and his counsel objected, both at that hearing and in a later written motion, but to no avail. Richer eventually entered a much less favorable bargain and received a sentence substantially longer than the one the parties had agreed to recommend. [continue reading…]
{ }
We’ll have a full analysis of this one in the coming days, but for anybody currently litigating a community caretaker case, be advised the doctrine doesn’t exist. Writing for a unanimous Court (there are two concurrences totaling four justices, so the 5-justice majority is law) Justice Thomas says that the reference in Cady v. Dombrowski to the “community caretaking” function of police was descriptive only: it’s not a stand-alone warrant exception. Not being an exception, it doesn’t get the police into the home. (Related justifications, like the need to render emergency aid, still may justify entry into a dwelling in a given case.) This decision clearly overrules State v. Pinkard, 2010 WI 81, 327 Wis. 2d 346, 785 N.W.2d 592 and State v. Matalonis, 2016 WI 7, 366 Wis. 2d 443, 875 N.W.2d 567, both of which held that “community caretaking” justified entries into private residences. Many other state cases rely on “community caretaking” in other contexts; given that the doctrine is now nonexistent, these cases are now without much, if any, force.
UPDATE: Oops. The case is Caniglia v. Strom.
{ }
State v. Tavodess Matthews, 2021 WI 42, reversing a published court of appeals opinion, 2020 WI App 33, 5/14/21, case activity (including briefs)
Section 801.58(1) allows a party to a civil case to request a new judge if, among other things, he files a written substitution request before “the hearing of any preliminary contested matter.” Matthews’ case concerns a substitution request made after the circuit court granted a motion to adjourn a Chapter 980 probable cause hearing regarding sexually violent persons. But since Chapter 980 commitments are civil proceedings, this unanimous SCOW opinion, which reverses a published court of appeals’ opinion, is an important clarification of the law governing all civil cases. [continue reading…]
{ }
Lawyers who defend immigrants might be interested in a bi-weekly newsletter by Tim Muth at the ACLU of Wisconsin. It’s called Wisconsin Immigration Focus. It covers everything from local marches to Wisconsin law enforcement’s collaboration with ICE, to the medical neglect of immigrants at Wisconsin Detention Centers. Check out the newsletter archive and subscribe to updates here.
{ }
State v. John R. Anker, 2020AP1218-CR, District 4, 5/13/21 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The officer who stopped Anker because his car was missing a license plate had sufficient reason to extend the stop by asking Anker to do field sobriety tests. [continue reading…]
{ }
Sheboygan County DH&HS v. S.K., 2021AP158, District 2, 5/12/21 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Though § 48.424(4) says that if grounds for termination of parental rights are found, “the court shall find the parent unfit,” the circuit court’s failure to utter those words doesn’t make the TPR order invalid. [continue reading…]
{ }
State v. Christopher D. Wilson, 2020AP1014-CR, District 1, 5/11/21 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); PfR granted 11/17/21; case activity (including briefs)
Police lawfully entered Wilson’s backyard under the “knock and talk” exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement. [continue reading…]
{ }
