J.B. VAN HOLLEN
ATTORNEY GENERAL

Standing Up for Public Safety in the Wisconsin Supreme Court

As Attorney General, my role is often to assist those on the front lines of crime fighting.  This means support from a number of Department of Justice operations, including investigative support from the Division of Criminal Investigation or State Crime Lab.  It also means support in the courtroom.

Identifying and arresting offenders is only the first step in the criminal justice system.  Local law enforcement is on the front line in responding to criminal incidences and conducting most criminal investigations in Wisconsin.  The second step is prosecuting offenders.  The majority of criminal prosecutions at the state level are advanced by district attorneys’ offices.  Together, police and prosecutors are critical front-line crime fighters.

The third step in the criminal justice system is making sure charges with legal merit can be tried and that convictions already obtained are upheld.  My office represents the State in felony appeals, whether the matter is a defendant’s appeal from a conviction or our affirmative request to review a circuit court’s dismissal of a charge or the suppression of key evidence.  Our role is not only to preserve convictions, but also to support appropriate law enforcement techniques when those techniques are the subject of a constitutional challenge.

Recently, the Wisconsin Supreme Court concluded its most recent term. During the term, the Attorney General’s office achieved significant victories in cases that upheld convictions or enabled a criminal prosecution to move forward. Some of these cases relaxed preexisting doctrines so as to better accommodate police investigatory needs. Others upheld the constitutionality of an important criminal statute, preserved a critical confession, and injected common sense in the application of legal principles in evaluating the propriety of a traffic stop. I believe that all of these decisions properly balanced individual rights with public safety- and the safety of responding officers.

During this term, my office achieved a number of significant public safety victories.  The following are just some of those successes this Supreme Court term:

• State v. Kramer: The Court clarified the community caretaker doctrine. The Court held that it is permissible for a police officer to have an investigatory motivation for initiating contact with a subject under the community caretaker doctrine so long as the primary motivation was to render aid and assistance. This ruling clarified or overruled other previous cases that had suggested that any investigatory motivation, no matter how small, rendered the doctrine inapplicable.

• State v. Ferguson: The Court extended the probable cause and exigent circumstances/ hot pursuit doctrine to include all jailable offenses. Previously the police could only make a warrantless, non consensual entry into a home with probable cause and exigent circumstances for a felony matter. This ruling allows for such a home entry when the police have probable cause/exigent circumstances of a misdemeanor offense. Naturally the police should temper their application of this new expansion of the exigent circumstance doctrine with common sense and best practices.

• State v. Baron: The Court affirms the constitutionality of the Identity Theft Statute. While the Court concedes that under certain circumstances the application of the statute could impact freedom of speech, it held that the regulation is necessary to serve a compelling state interest and it is narrowly drawn to achieve that end.

• State v. Ward:  The Court held that a confession in a child death case was admissible, rejecting the defendant’s contention that her statements were involuntary and the product of police coercion. The Court reaffirmed the concept that once a suspect has agreed to talk to the police and an interrogation begins, there is no obligation on the part of the police to advise the suspect that a lawyer is available.

• State v. Popke: The Court upheld a stop that ultimately resulted in an OWI conviction. The defendant argued that his alleged infraction was so minor, that it was not a sufficient basis for a traffic stop. The Court ruled that an infraction is an infraction regardless of its severity and thus a valid basis for a traffic stop. The police are not required to determine whether a violation of the traffic code is too minor or not- a violation is a violation.

Public safety is the top priority of state and local government.  At the Wisconsin Department of Justice (DOJ), we exist to assist law enforcement.  This assistance includes disciplines as diverse as investigators, laboratory scientists, and lawyers.  That’s how we fight crime and support public safety – by helping law enforcement and prosecutors.

J.B. Van Hollen is Wisconsin’s Attorney General.  Some of the cases referenced in this article involve pretrial appeals where no trial has occurred.  An individual is presumed innocent until such time, if ever, that the government establishes guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

This page created by the Department of Justice. All text, images or associated items are property of the Department of Justice, and may only be reproduced with the consent of the Department of Justice.
DOJ Home | Privacy Policy | Contact DOJ