Stephen L. Crocker
How Judge Crocker decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In suppression litigation he credits good-faith reliance on existing law and the totality of circumstances: he acknowledged the legitimate concern that drug-detection dogs trained on (now-legal) hemp complicate probable cause, but declined to suppress where police reasonably relied on settled doctrine and the specific dog's reliability record.
“Setting aside Plancarte's blindered hyperbole, he makes a valid point: the use of drug dogs in the age of legalized marijuana and hemp products must be reexamined. This, however, isn't going to help Plancarte, because existing law--upon which the police were entitled to rely--does not support his argument for suppression.”
Procedural preferences
On 28 U.S.C. 2254 habeas he applies AEDPA deference strictly: the petitioner bears a 'heavy burden' to show the state court's adjudication was unreasonable or contrary to clearly established federal law, and absent that, relief is recommended denied.
“he has failed to meet his heavy burden of showing that the Wisconsin Supreme Court adjudicated them in a manner that was unreasonable or that contradicted clearly established federal law.”
Treats Article III standing as a threshold that disposes of even fraught constitutional cases without reaching the merits -- dismissing for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (without prejudice) when injury is speculative rather than concrete and imminent.
“the issue before this court is narrow and procedural: does plaintiff have standing to bring the instant lawsuit? For the reasons stated above, I have concluded that it does not.”
Motion outcomes
Counted from classified signed orders only. Percentages are shown only where the sample is large enough to be meaningful; smaller samples are reported as raw counts.
| Habeas petition N = 1 |
Denied: 1 | counts only |
| Motion to suppress N = 1 |
Denied: 1 | counts only |
| Motions to dismiss N = 1 |
Granted: 1 | counts only |
A "1 of 1" is one ruling, not a tendency. Treat small samples as illustrative, not predictive.
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“I conclude that Lepsch is not entitled to habeas relief on his claims because he has failed to meet his heavy burden of showing that the Wisconsin Supreme Court adjudicated them in a manner that was unreasonable or that contradicted clearly established federal law. Accordingly, I am recommending that this court deny the petition.”
“Before the court is defendant Juventino Plancarte's motion to suppress evidence. Dkt. 16. For the reasons stated below, I am recommending that the court deny this motion.”
“IT IS ORDERED that defendants' motion to dismiss, dkt. 11, is GRANTED, and the motion for leave to file an amicus curiae brief, dkt. 10, is DENIED as unnecessary. The case is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 196 days (N = 6).
Illustrative texture only; not weighted counts. No FJC IDB baseline loaded.