State v. Radder (2018)

See also State v. Radder, 2018 WI App 36, ¶16 , 382 Wis. 2d 749 , 915 N.W.2d 180 (“The fact that the State would bear the 19 No. 2022AP350-CR burden of proof at a hearing does not mean [the defendant] simply gets to raise questions and put the State to its proof.... [T]he State is entitled to notice of the factual disputes supporting a purported constitutional violation.”). ¶40 This also strongly appears to have been the circuit court’s view of the scope and nature of the on…

See State v. Radder, 2018 WI App 36, ¶¶15-16 , 382 Wis. 2d 749 , 915 N.W.2d 180 . 3 Officer Brad Biller, another member of the surveillance team, testified that there were approximately ten officers conducting surveillance for the controlled drug buy. 3 No. 2019AP1355-CR although Atlas could not identify what was in the bag.

In Caban, although the defendant asserted a “broad Fourth Amendment challenge” to the warrantless search of his vehicle, his failure to specifically challenge probable cause to search in his motion and at the suppression hearing meant that he forfeited his right to raise that issue on appeal. 2 All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2017-18 version unless otherwise noted. 8 No. 2019AP1110-CR Id. at 604-09 ; see also State v. Radder, 2018 WI App 36, ¶16 , 382 Wis…

See Radder, 382 Wis. 2d 749, ¶12 . ¶16 As noted, the exclusive form of relief requested in Terhune’s motion was the suppression of evidence.

See id. ¶12 For the foregoing reasons, we conclude the circuit court had the discretion to deny Mire’s motion without a hearing because “the record conclusively demonstrates that [Mire] is not entitled to relief.” See Radder, 382 Wis. 2d 749, ¶11 (quoting Bentley, 201 Wis. 2d at 309-10 ).