Justia Wisconsin Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant was convicted of, inter alia, battery to a police officer, carrying a concealed weapon, and DUI. For the battery conviction, Rowan was sentenced to initial confinement followed by extended supervision. Among the conditions of extended supervision imposed by the sentencing court was the condition that Rowan's person, residence, or vehicle was subject to search for a firearm at any time by any law enforcement officer without probable cause or reasonable suspicion. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court, holding (1) while the condition the circuit court imposed on Rowan's extended supervision may have impinged on constitutional rights, it did not violate them; and (2) the evidence in regard to Rowan's conviction for battery to a police officer was sufficient to support the conviction. View "State v. Rowan" on Justia Law

Defendant Douglas Williams pled no contest to manufacturing THC. Williams appealed the denial of his motion to suppress, asserting that the search warrant that was issued for his home by a circuit court commissioner was invalid as beyond the lawful authority of court commissioners, and that the evidence obtained upon the execution of the warrant should be suppressed. Williams' argued that any exercise of power by unelected persons, such as circuit court commissioners, violated the Wisconsin Constitution. At issue before the Supreme Court was whether Wis. Stat. 757.96(1)(b), which grants specific statutory authority to circuit court commissioners to issue search warrants, was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's denial of Williams' motion to suppress, holding (1) section 757.69(1)(b) is constitutional, as it does not impermissibly intrude upon the judicial power granted to the courts by Wis. Const. art VII, 2; and (2) therefore, the circuit court commissioner's search warrant was validly issued. View "State v. Williams" on Justia Law

Employee filed state discrimination claims against Employer. Employee first filed her claims with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which dismissed her claims. In the meantime, Employee filed a civil action in the U.S. district court. Employer moved for summary judgment, claiming that Employee's charge was time-barred because it was received by the EEOC more than 300 days after her demotion. Employee argued that the intake questionnaire she submitted to the EEOC constituted a valid charge and was within the 300-day statutory time period. The U.S. district court granted summary judgment for Employer. Employee's claims later went to the Equal Rights Division (ERD) of the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development, which found concluded that Employee's claims had merit. An ALJ dismissed the proceeding on the basis of claim preclusion. The Labor and Industry Review Commission (LIRC) affirmed. On remand, the ALJ again dismissed, concluding (1) Employee's claims were untimely, and (2) the doctrine of issue preclusion prevented Employee from relitigating the issue of when her charge was filed with the EEOC. LIRC affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that applying the doctrine of issue preclusion in this case did not comport with principles of fundamental fairness. Remanded. View "Aldrich v. Labor & Ind. Review Comm'n" on Justia Law

Helen E.F. was an 85-year-old woman with Alzheimer's Disease. Helen was transported to the emergency room in the city of Fond du Lac for medical treatment. While there, Helen exhibited agitated and aggressive behavior. A police officer placed Helen under emergency detention pursuant to Wis. Stat. 51.15, and Fond du Lac County initiated a chapter 51 proceeding to involuntarily commit her for treatment. The circuit court eventually granted the petition for Helen's involuntary commitment for up to six months in a locked psychiatric unit. The court of appeals reversed, determining that the primary purpose of chapter 51 was to provide treatment, and because Alzheimer's Disease does not respond to treatment, involuntary commitment under chapter 51 was inappropriate. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Helen was more appropriately treated under the provisions of chapter 55, the protective service system, which would allow for her care in a facility more narrowly tailored to her needs and provide her necessary additional process and protections. View "Fond du Lac County v. Helen E. F." on Justia Law

After Employee suffered a work-related injury and was terminated by Employer due to Employer's inability to accommodate his physical restrictions, Employee filed a worker's compensation claim for permanent and total disability. The Labor and Industry Review Commission (LIRC) determined that Employee was permanently and totally disabled as a result of his work injury. LIRC made this determination after denying Employer's last-minute request to cross-examine or make further inquires of Dr. Jerome Ebert, an independent physician appointed by the Department of Workforce Development to examine Schaefer and report on the cause of his disability. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Employer did not have a statutory right to cross-examine Dr. Ebert, (2) LIRC did not violate Employer's due process rights when it declined to remand for cross-examination, and (3) LIRC did not erroneously exercise its discretion by declining to remand for a third time to allow Dr. Ebert to be questioned further. View "Aurora Consol. Health Care v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n" on Justia Law

Defendant Devin Felix was convicted of second-degree intentional homicide. The court of appeals reversed, holding that statements and physical evidence obtained from Defendant outside of the home after Miranda warnings were given and waived following a warrantless in-home arrest made in violation of Payton v. New York were not sufficiently attenuated from the unlawful arrest as to be lawful. At issue before the Supreme Court was which analysis governed the admissibility of such evidence, Brown v. Illinois or New York v. Harris, both decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court. The Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals after adopting the Harris exception to the exclusionary rule for certain evidence obtained after a Payton violation, holding that, where police had probable cause to arrest before the unlawful entry, a warrantless arrest from Defendant's home in violation of Payton required neither the suppression of statements outside of the home after Miranda rights were given and waived nor the suppression of physical evidence obtained from Defendant outside of the home. View "State v. Felix" on Justia Law

Petitioners asked the Supreme Court to take jurisdiction of an original action challenging rules adopted by the Government Accountability Board (GAB). Before the Court accepted the original action, four justices voted to enjoin the GAB from enforcing the rules Petitioners were challenging. The Court then accepted the original action, leaving the injunction in place. The participating justices then unanimously agreed that the order enjoining Respondents from enforcing the rules should be vacated. However, the court was equally divided on the rationale: half of the justices would conclude that the GAB had the authority to promulgate the amendments, and half of the justices would dismiss the action on the ground that an original action was improvidently granted. The action was subsequently dismissed, and the order enjoining Respondents from enforcing the rules was vacated. View "Wis. Prosperity Network v. Myse" on Justia Law

The circuit court found William Dinkins guilty of knowingly failing to comply with the sex offender registration statute, which required Dinkins to provide the address at which he would be residing ten days prior to his release from prison. The court found that Dinkins attempted to comply with the statute but was unable to find housing for himself prior to his release. The court of appeals reversed. The State appealed, contending that homelessness was not a defense to failing to comply with the registration requirements and that Dinkins could have complied with the statute by listing a park bench or other on-the-street location as the place he would be residing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that a registrant cannot be convicted of violating the statute for failing to report the address at which he will be residing when he is unable to provide this information. View "State v. Dinkins" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted at a bench trial of misdemeanor retail theft in the circuit court. On appeal, the court of appeals (1) affirmed the conviction; (2) denied Defendant's request to remand the cause to determine whether Defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his right to a jury trial; and (3) concluded that Defendant could raise the issue of postconviction counsel's ineffective assistance of counsel in a Wis. Stat. 974.06 motion. The court did not remand the matter. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the court of appeals erred as a matter of law in ruling that Defendant had an avenue of relief through section 974.06, and the court's error deprived Defendant of any opportunity for review of an on-its-face deficient jury trial waiver colloquy or the clear error by postconviction counsel in filing a defective postconviction motion. Remanded to reinstate Defendant's direct appeal rights and to remand the matter to the circuit court to allow counsel to file a new or amended motion for postconviction relief. View "State v. Sutton" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant Carl Dowdy was found guilty of second degree sexual assault. The circuit court sentenced Defendant to fifteen years imprisonment and then stayed the sentence in favor of a ten-year period of probation. Seven years later, Defendant petitioned the circuit court to reduce the length of his probation from ten years to seven years. The court granted the petition and thereby discharged Defendant from probation, finding (1) Wis. Stat. 973.09(3)(a) authorized the court to reduce the length of probation, and (2) there was cause for reducing the length of Defendant's probation. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the circuit court lacked authority to reduce the length of Defendant's probation. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Wis. Stat. 973.09(3)(a) does not grant a circuit court authority to reduce the length of probation; and (2) accordingly, the circuit court in this case erred as a matter of law when it relied upon section 973.09(3)(a) to reduce the length of Defendant's probation. View "State v. Dowdy" on Justia Law