by admin
on November 23, 2021
Have your mentally ill clients been denied medication or over-medicated? Have they been placed in seclusion or denied access to a phone or to interpreters?
Section 51.61 establishes “patients rights” for persons receiving services for mental illness, developmental disabilities, or drug dependency, pursuant to Chapters 48, 51, 55, 971, 975 or 980. When your client says that their rights are being violated, consider sending them a copy of Disability Rights Wisconsin’s new Do It Yourself Guide to Filing a Patient/Client Grievance. It summarizes their rights and the grievance procedure. It also includes forms and templates for pursuing a grievance.
{ }
by admin
on November 23, 2021
Since 2019, SCOW’s most steadfast liberal allies are Justices A.W. Bradley and Dallet. Its most conspicuous conservative allies are Justices Roggensack and Ziegler. SCOWstats’ latest post takes a peek at cases where these allies have disagreed.
{ }
by admin
on November 23, 2021
State v. M.P.H.-R., 2021AP1628, 11/23/21, District 1 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
M.P.H.-R gave birth to A.S.H. in 2011 when she was just 14 years old. Since then both mother and daughter have suffered mental health problems. They lived together briefly twice over the intervening 10 years. Otherwise, for 7 years A.S.H. has lived with a foster family. The trial court terminated M.P.H.-R.’s parental rights based on §48.426(3)‘s “best interests of the child” factors. The court of appeals affirmed. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on November 19, 2021
State v. Christopher D. Wilson, 2020AP1014-CR, petition for review of an unpublished decision granted 11/17/21; case activity (including briefs)
Issue presented (from the petition):
Did the police have implicit license to enter the backyard of Mr. Wilson’s home through a gated privacy fence? [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on November 19, 2021
State v. Jeffrey L. Moeser, 2019AP2184-CR, petition for review of an unpublished decision granted 11/18/21 ; case activity (including briefs)
Issue presented (from the petition):
Whether the ‘Oath’ requirement under the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution and Article 1, Section 11 of the Wisconsin Constitution require a police officer to swear an oath to the truthfulness of an affidavit used to obtain a search warrant to conduct an evidentiary blood draw in a criminal OWI matter? [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on November 19, 2021
State v. Alex Stone Scott, 2021 WI App 84; case activity
This split, recommended-for-publication opinion, merits further review. Scott drove M.S.’s truck without her permission and damaged it in the process. Undamaged, the truck’s Kelly Bluebook value was $2,394. M.S. testified that she did not want to repair the truck, but the circuit court nevertheless awarded restitution based on the cost of repair: $5,486.37. It also found that Scott, who was mentally ill and living on a minuscule SSDI benefit, was able to pay it. Judges Grogan and Neubauer affirmed. Reilly dissented. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on November 19, 2021
State v. Roman T. Wise, 2021 WI App 87; case activity (including briefs)
Wise was convicted of 4 counts of fleeing or eluding an officer under §346.04(3). He claimed trial counsel was ineffective for failing to seek dismissal of 3 of his 4 charges on the grounds that they were multiplicitous. The court of appeals held that the charges were not multiplicitous because each one required proof of a different element or fact. Thus, the circuit court appropriately denied Wise’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim without a hearing. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on November 12, 2021
State v. Laverne Ware, Jr., 2021 WI App 83; case activity (including briefs)
When the parties filed their initial briefs in this appeal, it was a community-caretaker case. But during briefing, the Supreme Court decided Caniglia v. Strom, which made clear that this doctrine doesn’t permit searches in the home (in the process invalidating some Wisconsin cases). So now–as the Caniglia concurrences foretold–it’s instead a case about the “emergency aid exception.” [continue reading…]
{ }
