On Point: a. Constitutional challenges

Milwaukee County v. T.L.R., 2018AP1131, 12/4/18, District 1 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication), case activity

Here’s an issue of first impression for SCOW. Lessard v. Schmidt, 349 F. Supp. 1078, 1092 (E.D. Wis. 1972) established procedural and substantive due process rights for persons undergoing mental commitments. One of those rights is the right to particularized notice of the basis for detention, including, the legal standard upon which the person is detained. Id. at 1092. T.L.R didn’t receive that notice.

Langlade County v. D.J.W., 2018AP145-FT, 5/1/18, District 3 (1-judge opinion, eligible for publication), petition for review granted, 7/10/19, reversed, 2020 WI 41; case activity

This decision makes you wonder whether §51.20(1)(am), Wisconsin’s recommitment statute, is unconstitutional either on its face or as applied to D.J.W.

Winnebago County v. Christopher S., 2016 WI 1, on certification from the court of appeals, and affirming the circuit court’s orders for commitment and involuntary medication; majority opinion by Justice Gableman, concurrence/dissent by Justice Abrahamson; case activity

The provisions of ch. 51 allowing the involuntary mental health commitment of prison inmates without a finding of dangerousness does not violate substantive due process because the statute’s provisions are reasonably related to a legitimate state interest.

Milwaukee County v. Mary F.-R., 2012AP958, affirming an unpublished court of appeals opinion; case activity

Majority opinion by Justice Crooks; concurrence by Chief Justice Abrahamson; additional concurrence by Justice Ziegler (joined by Justices Roggensack and Gableman)

The issues in this case spring from State v. Post, 197 Wis. 2d 279, 318-319, 541 N.W.2d 115 (1995)(“persons committed under Chapters 51 and 980 are similarly situated for purposes of equal protection comparison) and State v.

Review of unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity

Issues (composed by On Point)

1. Whether there was sufficient proof that Mary F.-R. evidenced a “substantial probability of physical harm” to herself or others and was therefore dangerous under Wis. Stat. § 51.20(1)(a)(2).

2. Whether Wis. Stat. § 51.20(11) is an unconstitutional violation of equal protection because it provides for a jury of six in ch.

Milwaukee County v. Mary F.-R., 2012AP958, District 1, 10/2/12; court of appeals (1-judge, ineligible for publication), petition for review granted 2/11/13; case activity

Ch. 51 Commitment – Sufficiency of Evidence

Evidence held sufficient to uphold commitment, on issue of “dangerousness,” State v. Poellinger, 153 Wis. 2d 493, 507, 451 N.W.2d 752, (1990), applied:

 ¶12      Here,

State v. Dennis H., 2002 WI 104, on certification
For Dennis H.: Ellen Henak, SPD Milwaukee Appellate

Issue: Whether the “fifth standard” for mental commitment, § 51.20(1)(a)2.e. (roughly: refusing treatment due to incapacity for making rational treatment decision), is constitutional.

Holding: The statute isn’t vague — the state must prove the various “elements” of this standard (which the court spells out and won’t be repeated here).