PER CURIAM. We review a report and recommendation filed by Referee John Murphy recommending the court suspend Attorney Scott E. Hansen's license to practice law for a period of six months consecutive to his present suspension for failure to pay Wisconsin bar dues, together with the imposition of restitution, costs, and certain conditions on reinstatement. No appeal was filed so this matter is considered pursuant to SCR 22.17(2).

ANN WALSH BRADLEY, J. The petitioner, Prism, seeks review of two decisions of the court of appeals: (1) affirming the dismissal of Prism's petition for judicial review of an agency decision; and (2) affirming the dismissal of Prism's amended complaint for declaratory judgment. These consolidated cases arise out of a dispute over a state procurement. Prism submitted a bid, but the contract was ultimately awarded to another developer. The Wisconsin Department of Administration ("DOA") denied Prism's protest, concluding that Prism was not entitled to the contract.

PATIENCE DRAKE ROGGENSACK, J. We review a decision of the court of appeals, which reversed the circuit court's judgment convicting Kelly R. Ferguson (Ferguson) of misdemeanor obstructing an officer pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 946.41(1) (2005-06). The issue presented is whether the facts of this case required the circuit court to instruct the jury that in order for Ferguson to have violated § 946.41(1), the entry of Ferguson's home to arrest her for disorderly conduct was accompanied by exigent circumstances. Ferguson contends that because the police entered her home without a warrant and the jury was not instructed on exigent circumstances, there was no basis for the jury to find that the police acted with "lawful authority," as § 946.41(1) requires. We conclude that, even though a jury instruction on exigent circumstances could have been given under the evidence presented to the jury, because Ferguson struggled with the officers outside of her home when she was in lawful custody of the police, the instruction given accurately set out the law for the officers' actions at that time. Therefore, if omitting an instruction on exigent circumstances was error, it was harmless error. Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the court of appeals and affirm the circuit court's judgment of conviction.

SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, C.J. We review an unpublished decision of the court of appeals dismissing for lack of jurisdiction an appeal from two decisions of the Circuit Court for Kenosha County, Wilbur W. Warren, III, Judge. Kenosha Professional Firefighters, Local 414, IAFF, AFL-CIO, and Alan M. Horgen (collectively "the firefighters") appealed to the court of appeals from a January 19, 2007, decision of the circuit court denying the firefighters' application for attorney fees, statutory damages, and costs, as well as from an April 26, 2007, decision of the circuit court denying the firefighters' motion to reconsider the January 19, 2007, decision. The firefighters brought their appeal to the court of appeals pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 808.03(1) (2005-06), governing appeals as of right from final judgments or orders of the circuit court.

SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, C.J. The State seeks review of an unpublished decision of the court of appeals reversing an order and a judgment of the Circuit Court for Dane County, Diane M. Nicks, Judge. The circuit court denied defendant Mitchell A. Lange's motion to suppress the results of a blood test analyzing a sample of his blood. The defendant entered a no-contest plea and was found guilty of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant as a second offense contrary to Wis. Stat. § 346.63(1)(a) (2005-06).

ANN WALSH BRADLEY, J. The West Central Education Association - Baldwin-Woodville Unit seeks review of an unpublished decision of the court of appeals which reversed an order of the circuit court and vacated an arbitration award. The court of appeals concluded that Christine Johnson was not entitled to back pay because she failed to file a timely grievance against the Baldwin-Woodville Area School District.

N. PATRICK CROOKS, J. This review of a published court of appeals decision involves the Ho-Chunk Nation's appeal of a denied claim for a tax refund under Wis. Stat. § 139.323(3) (2005-06). The statute authorizes partial refunds for cigarette taxes provided the tax was collected on sales made on land that "was designated a reservation or trust land on or before January 1, 1983." At issue is whether the land on which the relevant sales took place satisfies that portion of the statute. The land was approved for purchase in August 1982 and formally accepted by the United States government on January 31, 1983. The question on which this case turns is at what point a particular parcel of land "was designated . . . trust land" for purposes of Wis. Stat. § 139.323.

PER CURIAM. Evelyn Werner appeals from a judgment against Kenneth Hendree. She argues that the state of Wisconsin is obligated to pay the judgment under WIS. STAT. § 895.46 (2007-08) because Hendree caused damages while acting as a state employee and that dismissal of her claim against Michael Honeck, Hendree's supervisor, should be reversed. We conclude that we lack appellate jurisdiction because, despite the parties' agreement that the orders would not be entered until Hendree's liability was determined, the final orders were entered more than ninety days before the notice of appeal was filed. We dismiss the appeal.

BROWN, C.J. Wisconsin adopted a good faith exception to the exclusionary rule in State v. Eason, 2001 WI 98, ¶74, 245 Wis. 2d 206, 629 N.W.2d 625. When people close to the criminal law discuss this exception, they speak of a scenario where law enforcement officers seek to do something, get judicial approval to do it (a warrant), and act in good faith reliance on that judicial approval. In that scenario, the good faith exception provides that law enforcement's reliance will not come back to haunt them if there was a procedural error. Generally this means that courts will admit evidence even if the issuing magistrate made a mistake in approving the warrant application because suppression would not fulfill the main purpose of the exclusionary rule--deterring police misconduct.

PER CURIAM. The Helene Altergott Family Corporation (Family Corp.) appeals an order involuntarily dissolving the corporation on the grounds its board engaged in oppressive conduct. Family Corp. argues the circuit court's findings do not support the conclusion that its board acted oppressively. We agree and therefore reverse the order.

BRENNAN, J. The Washington County Deputy Sheriff's Association (WCDSA) appeals the trial court's order prohibiting arbitration of its grievance against the Sheriff. The trial court declared that the Sheriff's decision to staff the security screening station at the Washington County Justice Center with special deputies was part of the Sheriff's constitutionally protected powers and could not be limited by a collective bargaining agreement. We reverse because we conclude that staffing the x-ray and metal detector security screening station is not one of those "certain immemorial, principal, and important duties of the sheriff at common law that are peculiar to the office of sheriff and that characterize and distinguish the office." Kocken v. Wisconsin Council 40, 2007 WI 72, ¶39, 301 Wis. 2d 266, 732 N.W.2d 828.

PER CURIAM. In this anonymous tipster case, Donald E. Harris appeals from a judgment entered on his guilty plea to possession with intent to deliver cocaine and from the order denying his motion for postconviction relief. He seeks to withdraw his plea on the basis that search warrants issued without probable cause. We affirm.

PER CURIAM. In 1987, Melvin Shelton was convicted of one count of first-degree sexual assault of a child. See WIS. STAT. § 940.225(1)(d) (1985-86). Shelton's conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. State v. Shelton, No. 88-1441-CRNM, unpublished slip op. (Wis. Ct. App. Mar. 7, 1999). Since that time, Shelton has filed numerous postconviction motions in the circuit court, and he has appealed at least four previous times. See State v. Shelton, No.

BROWN, C.J. In State v. Hansen, 2001 WI 53, 243 Wis. 2d 328, 627 N.W.2d 195, our supreme court addressed WIS. STAT. § 961.45 (2007-08), providing for double jeopardy protection against successive prosecutions by dual sovereignties in the context of controlled substance offenses. The supreme court rejected the State's contention that, so long as the elements are different (the so-called Blockburger test), dual prosecutions may proceed. Hansen, 243 Wis. 2d 328, ¶¶12, 44. Rather, the court announced that successive prosecutions may not exist when the "conduct" is the same. Id., ¶44. In this case, Julio C. Bautista, relying on two cases from Pennsylvania, argues that conduct is defined as a "common scheme or plan" such that his conspiracy to sell drugs encompasses all acts under that planned endeavor. We are unwilling to accept that definition. Borrowing from a phrase in Harrell v. State, 88 Wis. 2d 546, 558, 277 N.W.2d 462 (Ct. App. 1979), we hold that when a defendant comes to a "fork in the road" and commits to a separate volitional act, it is different conduct and its prosecution is not subject to § 961.45. We affirm.

KESSLER, J. Jermaine Smith appeals from an order denying his "motion to amend his Judgment of Conviction to reflect his common law spiritual name," which he states is "Marcôlô Vôn Capôeira." Because Smith's motion fails to provide any support for his assertion that he used the name Marcôlô Vôn Capôeira for ten years (including four years prior to the time his crime was committed) and because he did not raise this issue during his criminal case, we affirm the order.

PER CURIAM. Shawn J. E. Luchinski appeals from judgments convicting him after a jury trial of three counts of the repeated sexual assault of a child in violation of WIS. STAT. § 948.025(1) (2003-04). He also appeals from an order denying his motion for postconviction relief. We affirm the judgments and the order.

PER CURIAM. The State of Wisconsin brings this interlocutory appeal challenging an order in limine ruling that Jim Ringer could introduce at trial evidence of the alleged victim's prior allegation of sexual assault against her biological father as "untruthful allegations of sexual assault," pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 972.11(2)(b)3. (2007-08). We conclude the court appropriately exercised its discretion and affirm the order.

FINE, J. Sammie L. Smith appeals a judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of three counts of felony murder. See WIS. STAT. § 940.03. Smith claims that the trial court erred when it denied his motion for a mistrial because the jury was exposed to allegedly extraneous prejudicial information. We affirm.

PER CURIAM. Javerne Lenard Graham appeals from a judgment of conviction and from an order that denied his postconviction motion for plea withdrawal. Graham contends that his pleas were coerced and that the circuit court erred by denying his postconviction motion without a hearing. We disagree and affirm.

PER CURIAM. In these consolidated appeals, William S. Roush, Jr., appeals from three orders entered in post-divorce proceedings. In a June 14, 2007 circuit court order (appeal no. 2007AP1444), the circuit court denied William's motion to modify maintenance and child support and his request to withdraw funds from the security fund to pay his tax obligations. We affirm these rulings. However, we reverse the circuit court's contempt finding because, as we have previously ruled, the circuit court could not find William in contempt if Nancy H. Roush obtained payment of child support and maintenance from the security fund. Because the circuit court did not have contempt authority under these circumstances, we also reverse the November 14, 2007 circuit court order (appeal no. 2007AP2945) because it sanctioned William and imposed jail time for failing to satisfy the purge conditions set out in the June 14 contempt order. Finally, we affirm the September 4, 2007 circuit court order (appeal no. 2007AP2427) requiring William to pay attorney's fees to Nancy because William did not appear at the hearing on Nancy's fee request, and he therefore waived his objection to the attorney's fees awarded by the circuit court.

PER CURIAM. John K. Gorman has appealed pro se from an order modifying the physical placement of one of his sons and modifying child support. We affirm the trial court's order.

LUNDSTEN, J. John D.D. appeals pro se from a circuit court order requiring him to reimburse Iowa County for half of the guardian ad litem's fees in a CHIPS (child in need of protection or services) action. The order is affirmed.

PER CURIAM. Terrance D. appeals from an order for guardianship, arguing the circuit court erred by appointing his daughter, Tonia D., as guardian of his other daughter Natasha J. D., who was born with Down syndrome. He also argues the court's appointment of Tonia as guardian interferes with his constitutional right to parent his child. We disagree and affirm.

DYKMAN, J. Jesus S. appeals from orders terminating his parental rights (TPR) to Jasmine A.S., Cristos J.S., and Melina R.S. and denying his postdisposition motion to vacate the TPR orders. Jesus S. argues that he is entitled to withdraw his admission that grounds existed to terminate his parental rights and proceed to trial on the merits of the TPR petitions because (1) he was not warned of the grounds alleged in the TPR petitions when his children were adjudged children in need of protection or services (CHIPS); (2) the trial court lost competency to proceed by violating statutory time frames before Jesus S. admitted grounds; (3) his plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered because the court failed to establish that he understand admission as to grounds would lead to an automatic finding of unfitness, and he did not in fact understand that; and (4) he did not have the effective assistance of counsel when he admitted grounds.

PER CURIAM. Jerry and Cynthia Torbeck appeal an order dismissing their nuisance action against James Lehrer. The Torbecks claim the circuit court erroneously concluded their action against Lehrer was barred by the doctrine of issue preclusion. We reverse the order and remand to the circuit court.

SNYDER, J. Adam H. Westenberger appeals from a judgment of conviction for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant, third offense. He contends that the circuit court improperly held that law enforcement had reasonable suspicion to make an investigatory stop of his vehicle. Consequently, he argues, all of the evidence obtained from the investigation should have been suppressed. We disagree and affirm.

DYKMAN, J. Michael Descamps appeals from a judgment of conviction for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant (OWI) in violation of WIS. STAT. § 346.63. He argues that he was arrested without probable cause when he was ordered out of his vehicle to perform field sobriety tests. We conclude that Descamps was not arrested when he was ordered out of his car and therefore has not established a violation of his constitutional rights. Accordingly, we affirm.

HIGGINBOTHAM, P.J. Gene E. Blum appeals an order denying his motion to suppress evidence and the judgment convicting him of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant (OWI), third offense, contrary to WIS. STAT. § 346.63(1)(a). Blum entered a plea of no contest after the court denied his motion to suppress evidence obtained following a preliminary breath test (PBT). Blum argues that the investigating officer lacked the requisite probable cause under WIS. STAT. § 343.303 to administer the PBT. We agree and therefore reverse the judgment of conviction and the order denying Blum's motion to suppress.

NEUBAUER, J. Team Property Management, LLC, appeals from a small claims judgment in its favor against former tenants, Tanya Tappa and James Krutke, in the amount of $1339.76. Team Property contends that the trial court erred in its determination as to its mitigation of damages and in precluding recovery for certain claimed damages. We conclude that the trial court's findings as to both mitigation and damages are supported by evidence in the record and are not clearly erroneous. We therefore affirm the trial court's judgment.

PER CURIAM. Theresa M. Garner, pro se, appeals from an order dismissing her second amended complaint. The trial court dismissed Garner's complaint because she did not comply with WIS. STAT. § 893.82 (2007-08), the notice of claim statute. We affirm.

SNYDER, J. The State appeals from an order suppressing evidence gathered during a traffic stop of William A. Bohn. The State contends that the circuit court incorrectly determined that the traffic stop was not based upon reasonable suspicion. We agree and reverse the order of the court.

PER CURIAM. Gregory D. Siegler, pro se, appeals the grant of summary judgment in favor of Judy Webb and Karen Kindel, co-trustees of the revocable living trust of decedent Joseph Siegler. Gregory contends the trustees acquired trust property through conversion and breached their fiduciary duty of fair dealing and proper management of trust assets. His claims do not survive summary judgment analysis. We affirm.

PER CURIAM. Emmett Ezra White appeals from an order of the circuit court dismissing his petition for a writ of mandamus. Because we conclude that the circuit court did not err, we affirm.