On Point: J. Forfeiture of seized property

State v. Lamont D. Powell, 2007 WI App 127
For Powell: Nicholas C. Zales

Issue/Holding:

¶3        The sixty-day limit in Wis. Stat. § 961.555(2)(b) is mandatory and a forfeiture petition must be dismissed unless the requisite hearing is held within the sixty-day period because a person may not be deprived of his or her property “for an indefinite time” without a prompt judicial assessment of whether forfeiture is justified. 

State v. John L. Kueny, 2006 WI App 197, PFR filed 10/19/06
For Kueny: James R. Lucius

Issue: Whether “actual physical possession” of weapons is necessary to support forfeiture under § 968.20(1m)(b).

Holding:

¶9        Kueny argues that he effectively did not have possession of the firearms. He reminds us that he had had no contact with the weapons since putting them in storage years before,

State v. John L. Kueny, 2006 WI App 197, PFR filed 10/19/06
For Kueny: James R. Lucius

Issue: Whether the weapon must have been used in the crime of conviction in order to be subject to forfeiture.

Holding:

¶11      Kueny misreads the plain language and misses a nuance of the statute. Wisconsin Stat. § 968.20(1m)(b) forbids returning weapons to one who “committed” a crime involving their use;

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: Right to seek adjournment of a forfeiture action until after “adjudication” of the underlying criminal proceeding, § 973.076(2), terminates upon trial-level disposition:

¶18. While the term “adjudication” is not itself specifically defined in the statutes, its meaning can be ascertained from an examination of the definitions of other related terms.

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 served the defendant with ‘authenticated’ copies or did so to the best of his or her knowledge.”

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 recognized that the result of refusing to return a weapon to a person who committed a crime using the weapon is a forfeiture.

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 proceeding. The court reached this same conclusion in a recent case.8

¶20 We now turn to whether the plaintiff may obtain monetary damages from the City in this proceeding under Wis.

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 involving the use of the dangerous weapon,’

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 v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S.

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 “(a)ny property seized but not forfeited shall be returned to its rightful owner.”