Miranda Issues
State v. Dosh, 97-1820
I.	THE TRIAL COURT CORRECTLY CONCLUDED THAT THE POLICE INTERROGATED MR. DOSH WHILE HE WAS IN CUSTODY AND THEREFORE THE POLICE VIOLATED MR. DOSH'S FIFTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS WHEN THEY FAILED TO GIVE MIRANDA WARNINGS.
II.	THE QUARLES PUBLIC SAFETY DOCTRINE IS AN EXCEPTION TO THE MIRANDA DOCTRINE AND AS SUCH IT MUST BE CONSTRUED NARROWLY AND APPLIED ONLY WHEN NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC FROM AN IMMEDIATE DANGER.
III.	THE COURT CORRECTLY SUPPRESSED ALL EVIDENCE OF THE GUN AND ALL STATEMENTS INCLUDING THOSE GIVEN WITHIN MINUTES AFTER RETURNING TO THE JAIL HOUSE.
	Go To Brief              Go To Decision
In the Interest of Clifford L.H., Jr., a Person Under the Age of 17: State v. Clifford L.H., Jr., 98-3123
I.	ANY STUDENT SUMMONED TO THE PRINCIPAL'S OFFICE AND THEN CLOSELY INTERROGATED BY A UNIFORMED POLICE OFFICER WOULD REASONABLY BELIEVE THAT HE WAS NOT FREE TO LEAVE; THEREFORE, THE OFFICER VIOLATED CLIFFORD H.'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS WHEN THE OFFICER DID NOT READ CLIFFORD HIS MIRANDA WARNINGS PRIOR TO INTERROGATING HIM.
II.	THE OFFICER'S FAILURE TO INFORM CLIFFORD THAT HE COULD LEAVE CREATED A SITUATION THAT THE TRIAL COURT CORRECTLY FOUND WAS COERCIVE.
	Go To Brief              Go To Decision
State v. Korotka, 99-1433-CR
	THE DEFENDANT'S WRITTEN STATEMENT TO DETECTIVE KINDT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED BECAUSE THE DETECTIVE DID NOT SCRUPULOUSLY HONOR THE DEFENDANT'S INVOCATION OF HIS RIGHT TO SILENCE.
	Go To Brief              Go To Decision
State v. Stephany, 97-2139-CR
II.	THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY ORDERED MR. STEPHANY'S STATEMENTS SUPPRESSED BECAUSE THE POLICE CHIEF FAILED TO CEASE THE INTERROGATION WHEN, IN RESPONSE TO THE CHIEF'S REQUEST THAT HE TAKE A POLYGRAPH, MR. STEPHANY SAID HE WANTED TO TALK TO AN ATTORNEY.
	Go To Brief              Go To Decision
State v. Dagnall, 98-2746-CR, ___ Wis. 2d ___ ( )
I.	THE POLICE VIOLATED THE DEFENDANT'S SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO COUNSEL WHEN THEY INTERVIEWED HIM AFTER HE WAS CHARGED WITH THE HOMICIDE OF NORMAN GROSS AND SUBSEQUENT TO THE TIME HE ASSERTED HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL.
	Go To Brief            Supreme Court Brief          Court of Appeals Decision          State of Wisconsin - Supreme Court
Interrogation After Rts. Attach
State v. Dagnall, 98-2746-CR, ___ Wis. 2d ___ ( )
I.	THE POLICE VIOLATED THE DEFENDANT'S SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO COUNSEL WHEN THEY INTERVIEWED HIM AFTER HE WAS CHARGED WITH THE HOMICIDE OF NORMAN GROSS AND SUBSEQUENT TO THE TIME HE ASSERTED HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL.
	Go To Brief            Supreme Court Brief          Court of Appeals Decision          State of Wisconsin - Supreme Court
State v. Dagnall, 98-2746-CR, 228 Wis. 2d 495 (Ct. App. (1999)
	THE STATE DENIED THE DEFENDANT HIS SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO COUNSEL WHEN DETECTIVES QUESTIONED THE DEFENDANT AFTER HE WAS CHARGED WITH THE HOMICIDE OF NORMAN GROSS AND SUBSEQUENT TO THE TIME HE ENGAGED COUNSEL.
	Go To Brief       Court of Appeals Decision       State of Wisconsin - Supreme Court
State v. Knaack, 98-2102-CR
	THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT DENIED DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS STATEMENTS HE GAVE WHILE INCARCERATED TO INVESTIGATING OFFICERS.
	Go To Brief              Go To Decision
State v. Semrau,98-3443-CR, 99-3452-CR
I.	THE POLICE VIOLATED THE DEFENDANT'S SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO COUNSEL WHEN THEY ARRANGED TO TAPE RECORD THE DEFENDANT'S STATEMENTS TO A POLICE INFORMANT.
	Go To Brief              Go To Decision
State v. Williams, 99-2575-CR
	THE STATE VIOLATED MR. WILLIAMS' SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO COUNSEL WHEN IT INITIATED INTERROGATION ABOUT VMO AFTER CHARGES WERE FILED PERTAINING TO VMO AND MR. WILLIAMS REQUESTED COUNSEL.
	Go To Brief              Go To Decision
State v. Brandon G. Knaack, 98-2102-CR
	THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT DENIED DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS STATEMENTS HE GAVE WHILE INCARCERATED TO INVESTIGATING OFFICERS.
	Go To Brief              Go To Decision
State v. Joseph K. Bryant, 00-0686-CR
	THE DETECTIVE VIOLATED MR. BRYANT'S FIFTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS WHEN, AFTER ARRESTING HIM FOR POSSESSING COCAINE THAT WAS FOUND IN THE SEARCH OF A HOME, THE DETECTIVE ASKED MR. BRYANT A SERIES OF QUESTIONS, INCLUDING HIS ADDRESS, WITHOUT MIRANDA WARNINGS.
	Go To Brief              Go To Decision
Voluntariness
In the Interest of Pao C.V., a Person Under the Age of 17: State v. Pao C.V., 99-1991
	PAO'S STATEMENTS TO LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS WERE NOT KNOWINGLY AND VOLUNTARILY MADE. HIS STATEMENTS AND ALL FRUITS OF HIS STATEMENTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED.
	Go To Brief              Go To Decision
State v. Radtke, 98-0743-CR
	THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO SUPPRESS MR. RADTKE'S STATEMENTS AS THEY WERE "COMPELLED" BY VIRTUE OF HIS RULES OF JUVENILE SUPERVISION.
	Go To Brief              Go To Decision
State v. Stephany, 97-2139-CR
I.	THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY FOUND MR. STEPHANY'S STATEMENTS INADMISSIBLE WHERE THE POLYGRAPH EXAMINER ELICITED THE STATEMENTS FIVE MINUTES AFTER TELLING MR. STEPHANY THAT HE "HAD DIFFICULTY" ON THE POLYGRAPH TEST.
II.	THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY ORDERED MR. STEPHANY'S STATEMENTS SUPPRESSED BECAUSE THE POLICE CHIEF FAILED TO CEASE THE INTERROGATION WHEN, IN RESPONSE TO THE CHIEF'S REQUEST THAT HE TAKE A POLYGRAPH, MR. STEPHANY SAID HE WANTED TO TALK TO AN ATTORNEY.
	Go To Brief              Go To Decision
State v. Johnson-Hayes, 99-1887-CR
	THE POLICE CONDUCT IN THIS CASE WAS COERCIVE, AND AS A RESULT, THE TRIAL COURT'S RULING THAT THE EVIDENCE SHOULD BE SUPPRESSED WAS THE CORRECT RULING.
	Go To Brief              Go To Decision
State v. Paul D. Hoppe, 00-1886-CR
	THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT ERR IN GRANTING DEFENDANT'S PRETRIAL MOTION TO SUPPRESS DEFENDANT'S STATEMENTS TO THE POLICE UPON THE GROUND OF INVOLUNTARINESS.
	Go To Brief              Go To Decision
Other
In the Interest of David J.M., a Child Under the Age of 17: State v. David J.M., 98-1048
V.	DAVID'S SUBSEQUENT STATEMENT AGAINST INTEREST, GIVEN AT THE POLICE STATION, IS INADMISSIBLE AS FRUIT OF THE POISONOUS TREE.
	Go To Brief              Go To Decision
State of Wisconsin, ex rel. Stanley Washington v. David H. Schwartz, Administrator, Division of Hearings and Appeals, 00-0004
	MR. WASHINGTON'S UNCORROBORATED CONFESSION WAS NOT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO FIND THAT AN ASSAULT IN FACT OCCURRED; UNLESS AN ASSAULT OCCURRED, REVOCATION OF HIS PROBATION WAS ARBITRATRY AND CAPRICIOUS.
	Go To Brief              Go To Decision
State v. Dawson, 00-1282-CR
III.	PATRICK DAWSON'S STATEMENT TO THE POLICE MUST BE SUPPRESSED BECAUSE THE WAIVER OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS WAS TAINTED BY THE ILLEGAL SEIZURE.
	Go To Brief              Go To Decision