The case involved Michael Sveum, who was convicted of aggravated stalking based in part on evidence obtained from a GPS tracking device that police attached to his car pursuant to a court order. Sveum moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that the installation and monitoring of the device without a traditional warrant violated the Fourth Amendment and the Wisconsin Constitution. The Wisconsin Supreme Court assumed without deciding that the GPS activity constituted a search or seizure requiring warrant authorization, but concluded that the court order was a valid warrant and that police reasonably executed it by attaching the device to Sveum's car in his driveway and monitoring its location for up to 60 days. The court therefore affirmed the denial of the suppression motion and upheld the conviction. The core reasoning focused on the order's compliance with warrant requirements, including probable cause and particularity, and the limited scope of the officers' actions.
In State v. Pinkard, police officers received an anonymous tip about two people appearing to sleep next to cocaine, money, and a scale inside a home with its back door open; they entered without a warrant to check the occupants' welfare after knocking and receiving no response. The defendant moved to suppress the drugs and scale found in plain view, arguing the entry violated the Fourth Amendment. The Wisconsin Supreme Court held that the warrantless entry was a valid exercise of the officers' community caretaker function because it was undertaken to ensure the health and safety of the occupants rather than to investigate crime, and the function was reasonably exercised under the circumstances. The court therefore upheld the denial of the suppression motion as to the plainly visible evidence and affirmed the conviction for possession of cocaine with intent to deliver.
The case arose from a 2003 workplace car accident that left Vearl Miller paralyzed, prompting a negligence suit against the other driver and multiple insurers, including Zurich American Insurance Company, which had a worker's compensation subrogation interest and was later alleged to provide underinsured motorist coverage. After Miller amended the complaint to add direct claims against Zurich, Zurich failed to file a timely answer, leading the circuit court to enter a $2 million default judgment. The Wisconsin Supreme Court held that the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion by denying Zurich relief from that judgment under Wis. Stat. § 806.07(1)(h) and therefore reversed and remanded with instructions to vacate the default, without reaching the validity of the default entry itself or the damages cap.
This case involved the termination of parental rights for three children after their parents were found to have neglected them in CHIPS proceedings, with the Sheboygan County Department of Health and Human Services filing petitions following the mother's heroin overdose and the father's incarceration. The parents appealed the denial of their motion to dismiss the petitions, arguing that the dispositional orders failed to specify required services under Wis. Stat. § 48.355(2)(b)1. and that the Department had not made reasonable efforts to provide services. The Wisconsin Supreme Court held that the orders were sufficient under either the 2003-04 or 2007-08 version of the statute, as the detailed conditions for the children's return implicitly directed the Department to provide necessary supervision, case management, and assistance. The Court further concluded that the Department met its burden by proving with clear and convincing evidence that it made reasonable efforts to deliver the ordered services.
In State v. Henley, defendant Dimitri Henley moved to disqualify Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Patience Roggensack from participating in his case, arguing that her prior service on a Court of Appeals panel that decided the appeal of his co-defendant Adams in a joint sexual assault trial created a statutory bar and appearance of partiality under Wis. Stat. § 757.19(2)(e) and (g) and SCR 60.04(4). The justice had not participated in Henley's own separate appeal. After analyzing the statutes and facts, the court denied the motion, holding that participation in a co-defendant's distinct appellate proceeding did not constitute handling the same action or proceeding, nor did it require recusal on impartiality grounds. The court also found no waiver issue because the justice was previously unaware of the connection.
This case was a dispute between Tarco South, Inc. and Collins Outdoor Advertising, Inc. The Wisconsin Supreme Court considered a petition for review of a lower court ruling in case number 2007AP0673. On July 28, 2008, the court denied the petition for review. Justice Roggensack did not participate in the decision.
