Legal Opinion

State v. Verkler

Court of Appeals of Wisconsin

Decided January 29, 2003No. 02-1545PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBrown, J.

¶ 1. In State v. Reitter, 227 Wis. 2d 213, 217-18, 595 N.W.2d 646 (1999), our supreme court held that law officers are under no affirmative duty to advise custodial defendants that the right to counsel does not apply to the implied consent setting. However, the court also appears to have held that, as a matter of due process, if an officer either explicitly assures or implicitly suggests that a custodial defendant has a right to counsel, then the officer may not thereafter mark down a refusal if the defendant acts upon that assurance or suggestion. See id. at 240-42. The defendant in this…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  2. Raley v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1959
  3. State v. NeitzelWisconsin Supreme Court · 1980
  4. State v. ReitterWisconsin Supreme Court · 1999
  5. Village of Elkhart Lake v. BorzyskowskiCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1985

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. In Re Refusal of KlissCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 2006
  2. State v. Myers (In re Myers)Court of Appeals of Wisconsin · 2018

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API