State v. One 1997 Ford and David Beck, 2003 WI App 128, PFR filed 6/6/03 For Beck: Adam B. Stephens, Alex Flynn Issue/Holding: Although a party must “show strict compliance with the requirements of” § 801.10(4)(a) when service is challenged, it is not necessary to “submit an affidavit in which the process server specifically states that he or she… Read more
J. Forfeiture of seized property
State v. Kirk J. Bergquist, 2002 WI App 39 For Berhquist: Steven H. Gibbs Issue: Whether the state’s refusal to return guns valued at between $5000 and $7,150, following conviction for disorderly conduct, violated the Eighth Amendment Excessive Fines Clause. Holding: ¶8. Although the term ‘forfeiture’ does not appear in this statute, our supreme court has… Read more
City of Milwaukee v. Sammie L. Glass, 2001 WI 61, affirming 2000 WI App 252, 239 Wis. 2d 373, 620 N.W.2d 213 Issue/Holding: ¶19 Considering the aims and objects of a Wis. Stat. § 968.20 action and the procedure set forth in Wis. Stat. § 968.20, we conclude that Wis. Stat. § 968.20 establishes an in rem… Read more
State v. Carlos Perez, 2001 WI 79, reversing State v. Perez, 2000 WI App 115, 235 Wis. 2d 238, 612 N.W.2d 374 For Perez: R. Douglas Stansbury Issue/Holding: ¶1 … The issue presented is whether a person who is convicted of carrying a concealed and dangerous weapon under Wis. Stat. § 941.23 (1997-98) has ‘committed a crime… Read more
State v. William W. Boyd, 2000 WI App 208, 238 Wis.2d 693, 618 N.W.2d 251 Issue: Whether forfeiture of the entire value of a $28,000 vehicle which transported a weapon used in a crime was excessive, especially in light of the maximum fine of $10,000 for the crime. Holding: Applying the proportionality test mandated by United States… Read more
Leonard L. Jones v. State, 226 Wis.2d 565, 594 N.W.2d 738 (1999), affirming unpublished decision For Jones: Colleen D. Ball, Reinhart, Boerner, Van Dueren, Norris & Riesselbach. Issue/Holding: Procedure for obtaining return of property seized under Uniform Controlled Substances Act is outlined in two seemingly overlapping statutes, §§ 961.55 & 968.20. The former, part of UCSA, mandates that… Read more
State v. Robert E. Frankwick, 229 Wis.2d 406, 599 N.W.2d 893 (Ct. App. 1999) For Frankwick: Wendy A. Patrickus Issue/Holding: Frankwick’s truck was ordered seized and forfeited, per § 346.65(6), following OWI convictions. However, someone had perfected a lien, the day before the convictions, and the trial court voided the lien after concluding that it had… Read more
State v. Lance Terry Konrath, 218 Wis.2d 290, 577 N.W.2d 601 (1998), affirming unpub. decision For Konrath: Ralph A. Kalal Issue/Holding: Forfeiture statute § 346.65(6) authorizes a civil, remedial in rem proceeding, and is not facially unconstitutional; because the statute is civil, double jeopardy doesn’t apply; the proceeding provides sufficient notice to satisfy due process (with caution that… Read more
