9 Wisconsin opinions name it 2 courts 1974–2022 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Wisconsin courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Duffy v. Director of Revenuegreen1 sentence2022Md. 2002) (“[R]esults of properly conducted SFSTs may be considered to determine whether probable cause exists ….” (emphasis added)); Duffy v. Director of Revenue, 966 S.W.2d 372, 378-79 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998) (“Obviously, a scientific test as to intoxication, which is improperly administered in that the person administering it is not able to properly 15 No. 2020AP1406-CR interpret the result for intoxication, does not tend to prove intoxication under a probable cause … standard.”). | 1 | 1 |
City of West Bend v. Wilkensgreen2 sentences2022However, in Wisconsin, there is no requirement of strict compliance with the NHTSA Manual as a prerequisite for SFSTs to be used in determining probable cause of an OWI-related offense.13 See, e.g., City of West Bend v. Wilkens, 2005 WI App 36, ¶¶12-16, 22 , 278 Wis. 2d 643 , 693 N.W.2d 324 . ¶32 Instead, probable cause—in this context in Wisconsin—requires a “quantum of evidence within the arresting officer’s knowledge at the time of the arrest that would lead a reasonable law enforcement officer to believe that the defendant was operating a motor vehicle [with a PAC].” State v. Blatterman, 2 2022However, in Wisconsin, there is no requirement of strict compliance with the NHTSA Manual as a prerequisite for SFSTs to be used in determining probable cause of an OWI-related offense.13 See, e.g., City of West Bend v. Wilkens, 2005 WI App 36, ¶¶12-16, 22 , 278 Wis. 2d 643 , 693 N.W.2d 324 . ¶32 Instead, probable cause—in this context in Wisconsin—requires a “quantum of evidence within the arresting officer’s knowledge at the time of the arrest that would lead a reasonable law enforcement officer to believe that the defendant was operating a motor vehicle [with a PAC].” State v. Blatterman, 2 | 1 | 1 |
Bullcoming v. New Mexicogreen2 sentences2015Justice Sotomayor distinguished Bullcoming from other cases where the trial witness "is a supervisor, reviewer, or someone else with a personal, albeit limited, connection to the scientific test at issue." Id. at 2722. 2015Justice Sotomayor distinguished Bullcoming from other cases where the trial witness "is a supervisor, reviewer, or someone else with a personal, albeit limited, connection to the scientific test at issue." Id. at 2722. | 1 | 1 |
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.green1 sentence1995Under this framework, the Court noted that the trial court should consider *687 several factors in determining whether scientific evidence is admissible, including: (1) whether the theory or technique can be tested; (2) whether the theory or technique has been subjected to peer review; (3) "the known or potential rate of error"; and (4) whether the theory or technique is "generally accepted." Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceutical, Inc., 113 S. Ct. 2786, 2796-97 (1993). 6 Section 904.01, STATS., states:" 'Relevant evidence' means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact th | 1 | 1 |
State v. Flattumgreen2 sentences1995Under this framework, the Court noted that the trial court should consider *687 several factors in determining whether scientific evidence is admissible, including: (1) whether the theory or technique can be tested; (2) whether the theory or technique has been subjected to peer review; (3) "the known or potential rate of error"; and (4) whether the theory or technique is "generally accepted." Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceutical, Inc., 113 S. Ct. 2786, 2796-97 (1993). 6 Section 904.01, STATS., states:" 'Relevant evidence' means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact th 1995Under this framework, the Court noted that the trial court should consider *687 several factors in determining whether scientific evidence is admissible, including: (1) whether the theory or technique can be tested; (2) whether the theory or technique has been subjected to peer review; (3) "the known or potential rate of error"; and (4) whether the theory or technique is "generally accepted." Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceutical, Inc., 113 S. Ct. 2786, 2796-97 (1993). 6 Section 904.01, STATS., states:" 'Relevant evidence' means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact th | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Randolph Jakobetzgreen1 sentence1995United States v. Jakobetz, 955 F.2d 786, 794 (2d Cir. 1992). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Wisconsin. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Frye v. United States
red
2 sentences1995Cir. 1923), conditions the admission of scientific evidence upon whether the underlying scientific principle has gained "general acceptance in the particular field to which it belongs." Id. at 1014 . 1983Even if this court applied the test set out in Frye , that test could not be used to determine the admissibility of hypnotically affected testimony. 14 Frye applied to the admissibility of “expert testimony deduced from a well-recognized scientific principle.” 293 F. at 1014 . | 3 | 1974–1995 |
State v. Walstad
green
2 sentences1985Cir. 1923) (the “Frye test”), which requires general acceptance of the scientific principle underlying the evidence offered. *367 The Frye test was recently rejected in State v. Walstad, 119 Wis. 2d 483 , 351 N.W.2d 469 (1984). 1985Cir. 1923) (the “Frye test”), which requires general acceptance of the scientific principle underlying the evidence offered. *367 The Frye test was recently rejected in State v. Walstad, 119 Wis. 2d 483 , 351 N.W.2d 469 (1984). | 2 | 1985–1995 |
State v. Dean M. Blatterman
green
2 sentences2022However, in Wisconsin, there is no requirement of strict compliance with the NHTSA Manual as a prerequisite for SFSTs to be used in determining probable cause of an OWI-related offense.13 See, e.g., City of West Bend v. Wilkens, 2005 WI App 36, ¶¶12-16, 22 , 278 Wis. 2d 643 , 693 N.W.2d 324 . ¶32 Instead, probable cause—in this context in Wisconsin—requires a “quantum of evidence within the arresting officer’s knowledge at the time of the arrest that would lead a reasonable law enforcement officer to believe that the defendant was operating a motor vehicle [with a PAC].” State v. Blatterman, 2 2022However, in Wisconsin, there is no requirement of strict compliance with the NHTSA Manual as a prerequisite for SFSTs to be used in determining probable cause of an OWI-related offense.13 See, e.g., City of West Bend v. Wilkens, 2005 WI App 36, ¶¶12-16, 22 , 278 Wis. 2d 643 , 693 N.W.2d 324 . ¶32 Instead, probable cause—in this context in Wisconsin—requires a “quantum of evidence within the arresting officer’s knowledge at the time of the arrest that would lead a reasonable law enforcement officer to believe that the defendant was operating a motor vehicle [with a PAC].” State v. Blatterman, 2 | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Hibl
green
2 sentences2017A law student commentator concluded that the Wisconsin Supreme Court nudged the relevancy standard closer to Daubert to the point that the relevancy standard became "Daubert lite," citing State v. Hibl, 2006 WI 52, ¶ 52 , 290 Wis. 2d 595 , 714 N.W.2d 194 (explaining that circuit courts have a limited gatekeeping function because the relevancy test requires a showing that the expert's opinion was "reliable enough to be probative"). 2017A law student commentator concluded that the Wisconsin Supreme Court nudged the relevancy standard closer to Daubert to the point that the relevancy standard became "Daubert lite," citing State v. Hibl, 2006 WI 52, ¶ 52 , 290 Wis. 2d 595 , 714 N.W.2d 194 (explaining that circuit courts have a limited gatekeeping function because the relevancy test requires a showing that the expert's opinion was "reliable enough to be probative"). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Peters
green
1 sentence2008Swope appears to argue that the death scene analysis is not relevant because it has very little science behind it; he goes so far as to label it "junk science." However, "scientific evidence is admissible under the relevancy test regardless of the scientific principle that underlies the evidence." Peters, 192 Wis. 2d at 688 . ¶ 23. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
State v. Disch
green
2 sentences1985Disch, 119 Wis. 2d at 475 , 351 N.W.2d at 499 . 1985Disch, 119 Wis. 2d at 475 , 351 N.W.2d at 499 . | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.