Criminal Law

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendants-prison officials' motion for summary judgment in plaintiff-prisoner's action alleging that defendants violated plaintiff's due process rights when it ultimately placed him in most restrictive disciplinary segregation for 240 days for certain misconduct. Defendants contended that plaintiff could not establish due process violation since instant punishment did not deprive plaintiff of any liberty or property interest, and plaintiff failed to provide any evidence that conditions of his segregation confinement differed from those of general population in one of Wisconsin's high-security prisons. Ct. rejected plaintiff's contention that burden of production and persuasion with respect to differences in confinement rested with defendants.

In prosecution on firearm charge stemming from seizure of guns after police had obtained consent from defendant's girlfriend to search defendant's home, Dist. Ct. did not err in finding that consent was voluntary even though girlfriend gave consent only after officer had told her that police would obtain search warrant if she declined consent. While defendant argued that consent was involuntary since officer uttered pretextual threat about obtaining warrant, officer had reasonable factual basis to support his belief that warrant would be obtained in absence of girlfriend's consent where police had gathered information from several sources indicating that defendant had maintained shared possession of murder weapon, and where police had taken preliminary steps to obtain warrant by forwarding to Assistant District Attorney necessary information about defendant's residence to put in any warrant application.

In prosecution on firearms charge, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress seizure of firearm from his person after police officer observed large bulge in defendant's shirt, and after defendant had removed object while walking towards officer's squad car to speak with him. Defendant did not challenge initial stop by officer, and officer had articulable suspicion that defendant was concealing weapon, so as to justify subsequent frisk of defendant where: (1) conspicuous bulge in defendant's shirt resembled handgun handle; (2) disappearance of bulge when defendant was out of officer's view suggested that defendant had repositioned gun so as to pose risk to officer and bystanders; and (3) defendant gave what officer reasonably believed was pseudonym when asked to identify himself, which suggested to officer that defendant was attempting to hide something. Fact that defendant willingly came to officer's squad car did not negate officer's suspicion that defendant posed danger.