It just so turns out that that mispresentation extends to a "GOP Triumvirate" of cases, the third being a Vermont decision from last year called State v. Peterson.
Declares Suhr: "In State v. Peterson, the Vermont Supreme Court cited Knapp and two other state supreme court decisions when holding that the Vermont Constitution provided broader pre-Miranda evidence gathering protection than the U.S. Constitution."
Once again, the Vermont court reached its conclusion independently of Knapp. It did not rely on Knapp in any sense whatsoever. Like the Ohio case, Farris, the Peterson court simply "notes" that it happens to have reached a disposition similar to Knapp. Knapp isn't presented as an authority for the Peterson result at all.
While Suhr's language is a bit more coy this time around — 'Peterson cited Knapp when holding ...' — it most certainly doesn't belong in a list of cases devoted to the proposition that the baleful presence of Louis Butler is infecting the jurisprudence of courts throughout the land and who, by extension, must be deposed.
Peterson turns on an analysis of United States v. Patane, the U.S. Supreme Court decision that also figured prominently in Knapp. But Patane is assessed in light of the Vermont Supreme Court's own prior holdings, certainly not those of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, and most definitely not those of Louis Butler.
A proper — and honest — treatment of Peterson would have been, 'Peterson cited Knapp after holding ....' But of course this wouldn't have supported Suhr's personal opinion that Louis Butler is a menace to civilization as we know it. Unfortunately, none of these three cases, Cleaver, Farris, or Peterson, even support Suhr's personal opinion. This is unvarnished political attack against Justice Butler, and what doesn't appear to figure prominently in it is honesty.
Well, that's enough of that. I see no point in checking any more of Daniel Suhr's disingenuous politicking. Three strikes. In a row.
Oh, by the way, I notice that Counsellor Mike Plaisted, in the course of his fine work here, links to a supposedly politically influential local conservative blogger, who opines:
Daniel Suhr of GOP3 has done a great service by analyzing all of Justice Butler’s opinions to evaluate his judicial philosophy.Uh huh. It's a service alright.