On Point: 3. Civil Commitments

Barron County v. Dennis H., 2010AP1026, District 3, 10/19/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Dennis H.: Jefren E. Olsen, SPD, Madison Appellate

Evidence held sufficient to support finding of dangerousness.

1) Recent overt act, attempt or threat to do serious physical harm. A psychologist testified that Dennis at times displayed aggressive behavior (“he changes at the snap of the finger and will become highly excitable,

Milwaukee County v. Earl Z., 2010AP704, District 1, 9/23/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Earl Z.: Jeremy Perri, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

County appeal of dismissal of emergency detention at probable cause stage is moot, where facts supporting that requested detention are no longer operative. Exceptions to mootness — appellate court may reach merits if the issue is sufficiently important or likely repetitious but evasive of review —

State v. Christopher Melendrez, 2009AP2070, District 4, 9/2/10

court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Melendrez: David R. Karpe; BiC; Resp.; Reply

SVP – Retroactivity of Qualifying Offense Legislation

Third-degree sexual assault wasn’t an SVP-qualifying offense when Melendrez plea-bargained a reduction of 2nd-degree sexual assault to 3rd. But by the time he was released from prison,

State v. Walter Allison, Jr., 2010 WI App 103; for Allison: Ellen Henak, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; BiC; Resp.; Reply

Summary judgment in favor of discharge isn’t an available option under § 980.09.

¶18 Applying the principles governing statutory interpretation to Wis. Stat. § 980.09, it is clear that the legislature explicitly prescribed a different procedure from those outlined in Wis.

Manitowoc Co. HSD v. Tammy L.C., No. 2010AP118, District II, 7/14/10 court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Tammy L.C.: Matthew S. Pinix

Mootness – Discharge from Civil Commitment

Appeal of commitment order is dismissed as moot where appellant has been discharged and no extension sought.

Mootness raises a question of policy, not jurisdiction, and the court dismissed the appeal only after satisfying itself that the underlying issue isn’t recurrent but,

State v. Wendy A. Brown, 2010 WI App 113; for Brown: William E. Schmaal, SPD, Madison Appellate; BiC; Resp.; Reply

The significant risk of “serious property damage” underlying an NGI institutionalization-commitment, § 971.17(3)(a), doesn’t require physical damage to property; loss of money or goods — from identity theft in this instance — suffices:

¶13      The above definitions of property and damage are much broader than that which would be required to support Brown’s limited interpretation of property damage.  

court of appeals decision; BiC; Resp.; Reply

Confidentiality – § 51.30(4) – Emergency Detention Statement

Release by a police department of a statement of emergency detention, occasioned by a deputy sheriff’s threat to kill superior officers, violated the § 51.30(4) prohibition on release of “treatment records”; and was not justified by the public policy exception that imposes on psychiatrists the duty to warn potential targets of threats made by patients.

State v. Daniel Arends, 2010 WI 46, affirming as modified, 2008 WI App 184; for Arends: Leonard D. Kachinsky

Procedure clarified for handling discharge petitions under recently amended § 908.09 :

¶3   We conclude that § 980.09 requires the circuit court to follow a two-step process in determining whether to hold a discharge hearing.

¶4   Under § 980.09(1),

U.S. v. Comstock, USSC No. 08-1224, 5/17/10

The federal scheme for detaining the equivalent of ch. 980 sexually violent persons beyond release date from federal prison, 18 U.S.C. § 1848, is a valid exercise of Congressional authority under the Necessary and Proper clause. In reaching this conclusion, the Court “assume(s), but we do not decide, that other provisions of the Constitution—such as the Due Process Clause—do not prohibit civil commitment in these circumstances.”

court of appeals decision; pro se; Resp. Br.

Appellate Procedure – Record Document not Included on Appeal
¶8 n.7:

To any extent that it is relevant to our analysis, we assume that the missing transcript of the March 23, 2009 hearing on the merits supports the circuit court’s ruling. See Fiumefreddo v. McLean, 174 Wis. 2d 10, 26-27, 496 N.W.2d 226 (Ct.