Janine P. Geske

This case involved Anthony Harris, a passenger in a vehicle stopped by Milwaukee police officers who were searching for a robbery suspect but had no description linking the car or its occupants to the crime and observed no traffic violations or suspicious behavior. Harris moved to suppress marijuana found on him after the stop, arguing it was the fruit of an illegal seizure, though lower courts ruled he lacked standing to challenge the vehicle stop. The Wisconsin Supreme Court held that all occupants of a stopped vehicle are seized under the Fourth Amendment and state constitution, giving them standing to object, and that the officers lacked reasonable, articulable suspicion to stop the vehicle in the first place. The court therefore concluded the evidence must be suppressed as the product of an unlawful seizure.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

In State v. Pultz, Dale Pultz was found in remedial contempt by the circuit court for violating a permanent injunction against specific activities at Milwaukee medical clinics, resulting in sanctions including a forfeiture or up to 380 days of jail time with a purge option. The Wisconsin Supreme Court addressed whether due process required the court to inform an indigent defendant of the right to appointed counsel at public expense in this state-initiated contempt proceeding under Wis. Stat. § 785.03(1). The court held that due process mandates such advice when incarceration is possible, reversing the contempt order and remanding for a new hearing, while declining to reach the separate notice issue.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

In Armstrong v. Milwaukee Mutual Insurance, Cheryl Armstrong, an employee at a dog kennel, was bitten by a Siberian Husky she was caring for during her shift and sued the dog's legal owners and their insurer under Wisconsin's strict liability statute for dog bites, Wis. Stat. § 174.02(1), after conceding no negligence by the owners. The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals' reversal of the trial court's damages award to Armstrong, concluding that she was a "keeper" of the dog under Wis. Stat. § 174.001(5) because her job duties involved exercising custody and control over the animal at the time of the injury. The court reasoned that a keeper injured by the dog may not recover from the legal owners under strict liability when there is no evidence of owner negligence, as the keeper assumes responsibility during care. The decision turned on statutory interpretation of "owner" to include keepers and applied it to bar the claim in this employment context.

torts & liability

This case involved eight Amish individuals cited for violating Wisconsin Statute § 347.245 by not displaying the required red and orange slow-moving vehicle emblem on their horse-drawn buggies, which they claimed conflicted with their religious convictions. The Wisconsin Supreme Court held that the statute was unconstitutional as applied to the defendants under Article I, section 18 of the Wisconsin Constitution, which protects the right to worship according to the dictates of conscience. The court reasoned that the defendants' beliefs were sincere and substantially burdened by the emblem requirement, and that the state constitution provided an independent basis for relief, even though alternatives like red lanterns and reflective tape were used. The decision focused on state constitutional grounds rather than federal law or the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

religious libertycriminal law

The case concerned a challenge to 1995 Wis. Act 27, § 2442v, which amended Wis. Stat. § 48.23(3) to prohibit circuit courts from appointing counsel for any party other than the child in CHIPS proceedings involving children alleged to be in need of protection or services. The court held the provision unconstitutional under both the state separation of powers doctrine and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It reasoned that the judiciary possesses inherent authority to appoint counsel that falls within its core zone of exclusive power, and that a legislative bar impermissibly intrudes on or substantially interferes with that authority. The court further concluded that due process can require appointed counsel in particular CHIPS cases to ensure parents receive a meaningful opportunity to be heard, given the proceedings' potential complexity and stakes, so a blanket prohibition could not stand.

civil rightsfamily lawprocedure

This case involved Michael Andrews, who was visiting an apartment when police executed a search warrant for drugs and drug paraphernalia there; officers found marijuana and related items in Andrews' duffel bag, which was in a bedroom and not on his person, leading to his conviction for possession with intent to deliver after his motion to suppress was denied. The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, ruling that the search of the bag was authorized by the premises warrant. The court held that, during execution of a search warrant for private premises, officers may search all items that are plausible repositories for the objects named in the warrant, except those worn by or in the immediate physical possession of a visitor whose person is not covered by the warrant. The core reasoning was that the duffel bag was not in Andrews' possession when searched and could have contained the marijuana or paraphernalia sought, consistent with Fourth Amendment standards and precedents from other jurisdictions.

criminal lawprocedure