On Point: 14. Equal Protect., 14th Am.

State v. Daniel M. Hirsch, 2014 WI App 39; case activity

The equal protection clause isn’t violated by § 343.307(1)(d)‘s differing treatment of Wisconsin and out-of-state” zero tolerance” OWI offenses (which penalize drivers under the legal drinking age who drive with any alcohol concentration).

Hirsch had two prior driver’s license suspensions for violation Illinois’s zero tolerance law. Under § 343.307(1)(d),

Milwaukee County v. Mary F.-R., 2012AP958, affirming an unpublished court of appeals opinion; case activity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Review of unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity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. Mark M. Benson, 2012 WI App 101 (recommended for publication); case activity

Equal Protection – Homicide of Unborn Child by Intoxicated Use of Motor Vehicle, §§ 939.75(2)(b)3, 940.09(1)(c) 

Section § 939.75(2)(b)3 exempts from criminal liability any “act by a woman who is pregnant with an unborn child that results in the death of or great bodily harm, substantial bodily harm or bodily harm to that unborn child.”

State v. Gerald L. Lynch, Jr., 2006 WI App 231, PFR filed 11/6/06
For Lynch: David R. Karpe

Issue: Whether a higher level of scrutiny applies to an equal protection challenge to a prison early release program which categorically withholds eligibility from certain types of crimes.

Holding:

¶13      The State, on the other hand, argues that we should employ the lower level of scrutiny,

State v. Gerald L. Lynch, Jr., 2006 WI App 231, PFR filed 11/6/06
For Lynch: David R. Karpe

Issue:  Whether statutory ineligibility for Earned Release, § 973.01(3g), for homicide by intoxicated use violates equal protection given eligibility for driving while intoxicated but not causing death or great bodily harm.

Holding:

¶18      Applying this standard, we conclude there is a rational basis for not allowing persons convicted of crimes under Wis.

State v. Jeremy P., 2005 WI App 13
For Jeremy P.: Adam B. Stephens

Issue/Holding: Because mandatory sex offender registration for certain juvenile offenders, §§ 938.34(15m)(bm) and 301.45(1m), is not punishment it does not violate procedural due process, ¶¶8-15. The court’s retention of discretion in administering registration defeats a substantive due process claim, ¶22. An equal protection argument, based on claim of children-as-supsect-class, is also rejected, ¶¶23-29.

State v. Alan R. Radke, 2003 WI 7, affirming 2002 WI App 146
For Radke: William E. Schmaal, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶5. The precise question raised, therefore, is whether the “two strikes” law violates the Due Process Clause of either the United States or Wisconsin Constitution because it requires a greater penalty to be imposed on an offender convicted of a second Class B non-fatal child sexual assault than the statutes require to be imposed on an offender convicted of a second Class A felony homicide offense.

State v. Roland Smart, 2002 WI App 240
For Smart: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether sentencing-guideline disparity for driving while intoxicated under guidelines adopted by local counties pursuant to § 346.65(2m) violates equal protection or due process.

Holding: Sentencing guideline disparities need be supported only by rational basis for equal protection purposes, as “(i)t is not a fundamental right to be free from deprivations of liberty as a result of arbitrary distinctions.”