State v. Timothy E. Dobbs, 945 N.W.2d 609

Sept. 5, 2015: Dobbs's car struck a pedestrian who later died; witnesses and a damaged tire led Officer Milton to stop Dobbs nearby and prevent him from leaving.
Officer Milton drew his weapon, ordered Dobbs out, frisked and handcuffed him, then placed him in a locked squad car and questioned him beginning ~7:30 a.m.; recording began ~7:34 a.m.
Officers observed vehicle damage, a can of air duster in reach, and later found a Menards receipt for air duster; Dobbs made several spontaneous and officer‑elicited statements before Miranda warnings were given at 10:19 a.m., after which Dobbs waived and later confessed to huffing air duster while driving.
Dobbs sought to exclude his pre‑Miranda statements (arguing custodial interrogation and involuntariness) and to admit Dr. Lawrence White as an expert on false confessions; the circuit court excluded Dr. White for lack of fit and denied suppression; a jury convicted Dobbs of homicide by intoxicated use of a vehicle.
The court of appeals affirmed; the Wisconsin Supreme Court granted review to decide (1) admissibility of the exposition expert testimony under Wis. Stat. § 907.02(1)/Daubert and (2) whether pre‑Miranda statements should have been suppressed and whether any admission was harmless; it also addressed voluntariness.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Dobbs)	Held
Admissibility of Dr. White's proposed expert exposition on false confessions	Testimony is unduly general and would not apply reliably to the facts; it would confuse jurors and invade credibility determinations	Testimony would educate jurors about false‑confession phenomena and dispel myths that innocent people never confess	Exclusion affirmed — exposition testimony is permitted in principle, but here it lacked sufficient "fit" to the case facts and therefore was properly excluded
Whether pre‑Miranda statements should be suppressed (custody/ interrogation)	Initially argued Miranda not required until later (Pine interview); on appeal conceded some custody occurred but emphasized investigatory context	Statements from ~7:30–10:19 a.m. were the product of custodial interrogation and should be suppressed for Miranda violation	Court held Dobbs was in custody and subjected to interrogation before Miranda; some pre‑Miranda statements should have been suppressed, but admission of those statements was harmless error
Voluntariness of statements (due process)	State: statements were voluntary; no coercive police conduct shown	Dobbs: physical/mental state (pain, no meds, sleep deprivation, anxiety/depression) rendered statements involuntary	All statements were voluntary — absence of improper police coercion means voluntariness established by the State

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (Miranda warnings required before custodial interrogation)
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (court gatekeeping and reliability standards for expert testimony)
Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (1980) (Miranda interrogation includes functional equivalents likely to elicit incriminating responses)
Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (1984) (treatment of motorists and when Miranda custody is triggered)
State v. Morgan, 254 Wis. 2d 602 (Ct. App. 2002) (distinguishing Fourth Amendment Terry detention analysis from Fifth Amendment Miranda custody analysis)
State v. Bartelt, 379 Wis. 2d 588 (2018) (enumerating factors for determining Miranda custody under totality of circumstances)
State v. Pico, 382 Wis. 2d 273 (2018) (trial court discretion in admitting expert testimony reviewed for erroneous exercise of discretion)
State v. Jones, 381 Wis. 2d 284 (2018) (Wisconsin adoption of Daubert standard into Wis. Stat. § 907.02(1))
State v. Blatterman, 362 Wis. 2d 138 (2015) (Fourth Amendment/Terry stop analysis referenced by lower court; Court clarifies distinctness from Fifth Amendment analysis)