On July 28, 2021, the court of appeals ordered publication of the following criminal law related decisions: [continue reading…]
Trempealeau County v. B.K., 2020AP1166, District 3, 7/27/21 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
B.K. (“Brian”) argues he was denied procedural due process because he was not given particularized notice of which standard of dangerousness the County intended to prove at the final commitment hearing. He also contends the evidence presented at the hearing was insufficient to prove he was dangerous. The court of appeals rejects with both claims. [continue reading…]
State v. George Steven Burch, 2021 WI 68, on certification from the court of appeals, affirming the judgment of conviction; case activity (including briefs)
We said in our post on the court of appeals’ certification that this case presented novel and important issues about searches of cell phones and their data. So we anticipated a decision addressing the parameters of police searches of digital devices. But the majority doesn’t address those issues or decide whether Burch’s Fourth Amendment rights were violated. Instead, the majority holds that, regardless of the lawfulness of the search of Burch’s cell phone data, “there was no police misconduct to trigger application of the exclusionary rule.” (¶26). The majority’s approach bodes ill for the future of Fourth Amendment litigation and the freedom the Fourth Amendment is intended to protect—as illustrated by this case, given that a majority of the justices (one concurring, three dissenting) concludes the search of Burch’s phone data violated the Fourth Amendment.
State v. George Steven Burch, 2021 WI 68, 6/29/21, on certification from the court of appeals, affirming a judgment of conviction; case activity (including briefs)
The circuit court properly exercised its discretion in allowing the state to introduce evidence relating to Fitbit data without requiring expert testimony on the reliability of the device. [continue reading…]
Rusk County v. A.A., 2019AP839 & 2020AP1580, District 3, 7/20/21 (not recommended for publication); case activity (2019AP839; 2020AP1580)
A.A. appeals two recommitment orders, raising multiple constitutional issues as to both and challenging the sufficiency of the evidence of dangerousness as to one of the cases and the admission of hearsay evidence regarding the other. The court of appeals acknowledges that A.A.’s constitutional claims raise “important” and “thorny” issues about recommitment petition pleading requirements and the constitutionality of recommitment proceedings, but it it resolves both cases on the evidentiary issues. (¶¶15, 31-32). [continue reading…]
State v. T.T., 2021AP739, 2021AP740, 2021AP741 & 2021AP742, District 1, 7/23/21 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
T.T. unsuccessfully challenges the findings at the grounds phase and the dispositional order terminating his parental rights to his four children. [continue reading…]
C.W. v. M.M., 2021AP330 & 2021AP331, District 3, 7/21/21 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
M.M.’s consent to voluntary termination of parental rights was valid and can’t be withdrawn. [continue reading…]
State v. Aaron Matthew Oleston, 2020AP952-CR, District 4, 7/15/21 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Olseston was charged with five counts of disorderly conduct for “hurling profanities and personal insults” (¶14) at Janesville police officers as they came and left the police station, as well as filming some of the encounters. Three of the five counts can’t be prosecuted because Oleston’s conduct was protected by the First Amendment; the other two can be, because they went beyond protected speech. [continue reading…]
