by admin
on October 22, 2020
Washington County v. Kelly L. Springer, 2020AP491, 10/21/20, District 2 (1-judge opinion, ineligble for publication); case activity (including briefs)
After being stopped for a suspected OWI, Springer failed field sobriety tests and his preliminary breath test showed a .18% blood alcohol content. A sheriff read the Informing the Accused form and asked if he would submit to a chemical test of his breath. Springer did not answer even after being asked 6 to 7 times. Then he said: “I already gave you my test.” The sheriff took this to mean “no.” The circuit court held the refusal unlawful under §343.305(9)(a) of Wisconsin’s implied consent law , and the court of appeals affirmed. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on October 22, 2020
State v. Dawn M. Prado, 2016AP308, cross-petitions for review of a published court of appeals decision granted 10/21/20; case activity (including briefs and, now, PFRs!)
You’ve heard this one before. Here’s our post on the court of appeals decision, which struck down the unconscious-driver provisions of the implied-consent statute but nevertheless declined to suppress the blood draw results under the good-faith doctrine. Perhaps you imagined the matter resolved, particularly given that after several failures to decide the question, SCOW had begun declining the court of appeals’ certification requests on the topic. No such luck. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on October 20, 2020
State v. George Steven Burch, 2019AP404-CR, District 3 (10/20/20), review granted 11/18/20, circuit court judgment affirmed, 2021 WI 68; case activity (including briefs)
Burch … contends the [Green Bay Police Department] and the [Brown County Sheriff’s Office] violated his Fourth Amendment rights in three ways: (1) the GBPD exceeded the scope of his consent to search his cell phone by downloading the phone’s entire contents, rather than only the text messages; (2) the GBPD unlawfully retained the entire cell phone download after it completed its June 2016 investigation into the vehicle incidents; and (3) the BCSO had no lawful authority to conduct a second search of the cell phone download in August 2016. Because these issues raise novel questions regarding the application of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence to the vast array of digital information contained in modern cell phones, we certify this appeal to the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
[continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on October 20, 2020
Lange v. California, USSC No. 20-18, certiorari granted 10/19/20; vacated and remanded, 6/23/21
Question presented:
Does pursuit of a person who a police officer has probable cause to believe has committed a misdemeanor categorically qualify as an exigent circumstance sufficient to allow the officer to enter a home without a warrant?
[continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on October 20, 2020
That’s the title of this new publication by the Legislative Reference Bureau. The publication discusses the impact on Wisconsin of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in McGirt v. Oklahoma, USSC No. 18-9256 (U.S. July 9, 2020). [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on October 18, 2020
From the DHS press release:
Beginning October 24, 2020, Medicaid members that are incarcerated will have their health care benefits suspended and then re-evaluated before they are released from jail or prison. Previously, Medicaid members who became incarcerated had their coverage terminated, which then often delayed their access to medical and behavioral health care following their release. The Department of Health Services (DHS) and the Department of Corrections (DOC) have been working with income maintentance agencies and community partners to make this policy change.
{ }
by admin
on October 18, 2020
Orin Kerr writes about the Supreme Court’s increasing use of subjective rather than objective tests in Fourth Amendment cases, here.
And commentary and discussion about court proceedings during and after Covid-19 continue to appear. For instance:
The Pandemic Juror, by Melanie Wilson at University of Tennessee
Unmuted: Solutions to Safeguard Constitutional Rights in Virtual Courtrooms and How Technology Can Expand Access to Quality Counsel and Transparency in the Criminal Justice System, by Matt Bender at University of Arkansa
Virtual Trials: Necessity, Invention, and the Evolution of the Courtroom, by Susan Bandes of DePaul University and & Neal Feigenson of Quinnipiac University
Finally, Evan Lee at Hastings has posted at Scotusblog about the criminal law decisions of Amy Coney Barrett since she’s been on the 7th Circuit.
{ }
by admin
on October 15, 2020
Village of Lomira v. Phillip N. Benninghoff, 2020AP31, District 4, 10/15/20 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Benninghoff tries to raise a bevy of challenges to the implied consent law and to the revocation of his driving privileges for refusing a blood draw. His challenges are forfeited because he failed to file a timely request for a refusal hearing and, in any event, the arguments aren’t suitably developed or are foreclosed by State v. Levanduski, 2020 WI App 53. [continue reading…]
{ }
