Justia Wisconsin Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the order and judgment of the circuit court in this case concerning whether local health officers may lawfully issue public health orders, holding that local health officers have statutory authority to issue orders and that no state law preempted the local health ordinance in question.At issue was Dane County Ordinance 46.40 regarding the prevention, suppression, and control of communicable diseases. Plaintiffs bought this action against the County and the Health Department and its director challenging their authority to issue and enforce such orders. The circuit court granted summary judgment against Plaintiffs' claims. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Wis. Stat. 252.03 grants local health officers the authority to issue public health orders; (2) the ordinance at issue, which makes such orders enforceable by civil citations, was not preempted by state law; and (3) a local health officer's authority to issue enforceable public health orders pursuant to section section 252.03 and ordinance 46.40 does not run afoul of constitutional separation of powers principles. View "Becker v. Dane County" on Justia Law

In this case concerning two documents created by employees of the Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC) that authorized municipal clerks and local election officials to establish ballot drop boxes the Supreme Court held that the documents were invalid because ballot drop boxes are illegal under Wisconsin statutes.Two Wisconsin voters brought this action challenging the validity of the documents, arguing, among other things, that, under Wisconsin statutes, drop boxes are illegal. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) an absentee ballot must be returned by mail or the voter must personally deliver it to the municipal clerk at the clerk's officer or a designated alternate site, not an inanimate object; and (2) therefore, the documents were invalid. View "Teigen v. Wisconsin Elections Commission" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the decision of the court of appeals affirming the judgment of the circuit court denying Defendant's postconviction motion but reversing the denial of Defendant's request for an evidentiary hearing, holding that the circuit court properly exercised its discretion in denying an evidentiary hearing.After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of one count each of felony murder and possession of a firearm by a felon. In his motion for postconviction relief Defendant argued that the trial judge's ex parte contact with one juror violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel and that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to object to hearsay testimony. The circuit court denied the motion without holding an evidentiary hearing. The court of appeals affirmed the denial of the motion but reversed and remanded on the ground that Defendant was entitled to a hearing on his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. View "State v. Spencer" on Justia Law

In this case regarding the interpretation of Wis. Stat. 939.46(1m) and the scope of the "affirmative defense for any offense committed as a direct result" of human or child sex trafficking the Supreme Court held that the statute is a complete defense to first-degree intentional homicide.Defendant was charged with first-degree intentional homicide, arson, and several other offenses in connection with the death of the man she says trafficked her. At issue was whether Defendant was entitled to a jury instruction on the defense provided in section 939.46(1m) at trial as to some or all of the charges against her. The Supreme Court declined to answer this question because it would be available to Defendant at trial only if she put forth some evidence to support its application. The Court then held that if Defendant does provide such evidence, it will be the State's burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defense does not apply. View "State v. Kizer" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals reversing the decision of the circuit court convicting Defendant on the charge of first-degree intentional homicide with use of a dangerous weapon and being a felon in possession of a firearm, holding that Defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel was not violated.At issue was whether Defendant's constitutional right to counsel was violated when a jail inmate secretly recorded conversations with Defendant and when the State admitted those recordings into evidence. The court of appeals reversed on grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel, concluding that trial counsel's failure to seek suppression of the recording fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel was not violated because Defendant was not acting as a State agent when he recorded his conversations with Defendant. View "State v. Arrington" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the judgment of the circuit court declining to decide whether a letter from the Wisconsin Department of Revenue (DOR) constituted an unpromulgated rule, deferring instead to the Tax Appeals Commission to first decide that question, holding that the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion.Wisconsin, Manufactures and Commerce, Inc. (WMC) sent a letter to the Wisconsin Department of Revenue (DOR) articulating its view that machinery, patterns and tools that are not used in manufacturing are exempt from tax under Wis. Stat. 70.111(27)(b) even if that property is "located on manufacturing property." DOR sent a letter in return explaining that the exemption does not apply to manufacturers. WMC filed a declaratory judgment action claiming that DOR's letter was an invalid umpromulgated rule and that DOR's interpretation of the exemption violated the state and federal Constitutions. The circuit court dismissed all claims under the primary jurisdiction doctrine. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that deference to the Tax Appeals Commission was not warranted under the primary jurisdiction doctrine. View "Wis. Property Tax Consultants, Inc. v. Wis. Department of Revenue" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the circuit court dismissing this action for quo warrants and declaratory judgment relief alleging that Frederick Prehn unlawfully held a position on the Wisconsin Board of Natural Resources (the DNR Board), holding that the district court properly concluded that there was no statutory or constitutional basis to remove Prehn from office without cause.On April 30, 2021, Governor Tony Evers announced the appointment of Sandra Dee E. Naas to replace Prehn on the DNR Board, but Prehn declined to step down from his position. The Attorney General, on behalf of the State, filed this action alleging that when Prehn's term expired on May 1, 2021, he no longer possessed any legal right to his position on the DNR Board. The State asked the circuit court to order that Prehn be removed from office or that the circuit court declare that the Governor can remove him without cause. The circuit court dismissed the complaint with prejudice. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the expiration of Prehn's term on the DNR Board did not create a vacancy, and Prehn lawfully retained his position as a holdover; and (2) until his successor is confirmed by the senate, Prehn may be removed by the Governor only for cause. View "State ex rel. Kaul v. Prehn" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals reversing the decision of the circuit court denying Defendant's motion to suppress evidence, including a handgun, obtained as a result of an investigative stop, holding that, based on the totality of the circumstances, the officers had reasonable suspicion to believe Defendant was involved in criminal activity.Defendant was charged with being a felon in possession. Defendant filed a motion to suppress, arguing that the investigative stop leading to the discovery of the handgun violated his Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable seizure. The circuit court denied the motion, but the court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the officers did not violate Defendant's Fourth Amendment rights because they reasonably suspected Defendant was involved in criminal activity presenting an imminent threat to public safety. View "State v. Nimmer" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals summarily affirming the judgment of the circuit court granting the State's motion to dismiss the operating while intoxicated (OWI) count against Defendant and entering judgment against Defendant on the count of operating with a prohibited alcohol concentration (PAC), holding that there was no error.The circuit court issued a search warrant to draw Defendant's blood based on the affidavit of a police officer. Defendant's blood was drawn, revealing a blood alcohol level of an amount well above the legal limit. The State charged Defendant with fourth offense OWI, fourth offense PAC, and resisting an officer. After the circuit court denied Defendant's motion to suppress a jury found Defendant guilty of OWI and PAC. The circuit court dismissed the OWI count and entered judgment on the PAC count. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the warrant was supported by probable cause. View "State v. Green" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that Wisconsin's operating while intoxicated (OWI) graduated-penalty scheme is unconstitutional to the extent it counts prior revocations for refusing to submit to a warrantless blood draw as offenses for the purpose of increasing the criminal penalty.When Defendant was convicted of his sixth OWI offense the court counted as one of his six prior offenses a 1996 temporary revocation of Defendant's driving privileges for refusing to submit to a warrantless blood draw, which led to Defendant receiving a longer sentence. On appeal, Defendant argued that Wisconsin's graduated-penalty scheme for OWI offenses is unconstitutional because it threatens criminal penalties for those who exercise their Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches. The Supreme Court agreed, holding that Wis. Stat. 343.307(1) and 346.65(2)(am) are unconstitutional to the extent that they count as offenses prior revocations resulting solely from a person's refusal to submit to a warrantless blood draw for the purpose of increasing the criminal penalty. View "State v. Forrett" on Justia Law