On Point: A. Validity

State v. Desmond J. Wilhite, 2024AP2177-CR, petition for review of a published decision of the court of appeals, granted 8/18/26; case activity

SCOW grants the state’s petition in this defense win (see our post on the COA decision here), which held that Wis. Stat. § 971.17(3)(e) is facially unconstitutional to the extent that it permits a circuit court to revoke an NGI acquittee’s conditional release and to commit the acquittee to institutional care based solely on the violation of a court-ordered condition or department rule without proof of current dangerousness.

State v. Kyle A. Schaefer, 2023AP1747-CR, 11/18/25, District III (recommended for publication); case activity

Schaefer appeals from an order granting the Department of Health Services’ petition to revoke his conditional release under WIS. STAT. § 971.17(3)(e). When DHS originally detained Schaefer, it filed the required probable cause statement and petition to revoke his conditional release in the circuit court case but failed to timely submit the documents to “the regional office of the state public defender” within 72 hours as required by § 971.17(3)(e). After the circuit court dismissed the petition pursuant to State v. Olson, 2019 WI App 61, ¶2, 389 Wis. 2d 257, 936 N.W.2d 178, DHS refiled the same petition with a new date of detention. Schaefer’s conditional release was thereafter revoked on the second petition. COA affirms, holding that DHS may refile after a petition is dismissed for lack of compliance with § 971.17(3)(e).

State v. Desmond J. Wilhite, 2024AP2177-CR, 9/25/25, District IV (recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

COA agrees with Wilhite that Wis. Stat. § 971.17(3)(e) is facially unconstitutional to the extent that it permits a circuit court to revoke an NGI acquittee’s conditional release and to commit the acquittee to institutional care based solely on the violation of a court-ordered condition or department rule without proof of current dangerousness. It also concludes that the unconstitutional provisions in § 971.17(3)(e) are severable, and leaves in place the remainder of the statute.

Graham L. Stowe v. Gregory Van Rybroek, No. 23-3345, 8/21/24

This habeas appeal is limited to a facial challenge to the NGI conditional release statute, Wis. Stat. § 971.17(4)(d). The Seventh Circuit rejects Stowe’s argument, concluding that he cannot show that there are no circumstances under which the law’s application would be valid.

Winnebago County v. C.S., 2016AP1982, petition for review of a published court of appeals opinion granted 8/15/19; case activity

Issue:

Does Wis. Stat. §51.61(1)(g) violate substantive due process because it does not require a finding of dangerousness to involuntarily medicate a prisoner?

State v. Blake Lee Harrison, 2017AP1811, District 3, 2/26/19 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Harrison’s due process and void-for-vagueness challenges to § 346.63(1)(am) (prohibiting driving with a detectable amount of restricted controlled substance) go up in smoke.

State v. Michael A. Keister, 2017AP1618-CR, state’s petition for review granted 9/4/2018; case activity (including briefs)

Issues (based on the state’s petition for review )

1. Does a person have a fundamental liberty interest in participation in a treatment court funded by the state and county when he or she is charged with an offense involving violent conduct as defined in § 165.95(1)(a) (2015-16)?
2. Does § 165.95 (2015-16), the statute creating DOJ’s grant funding for treatment courts, violate procedural due process because it does not procedures for treatment courts to follow in expelling a participant?

State v. Samuel Silverstein, 2017 WI App 64; case activity (including briefs)

Pursuant to a warrant, police searched Silverstein’s computer for child porn. The “informer” was Tumblr, which is required by federal law to report suspected child pornography to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. Silverstein challenged the warrant as well as the mandatory minimum sentence the trial court imposed per §939.617, which he contends is unconstitutionally vague.

On Point is pleased to present a guest post by Attorney Adam Welch of Tracy Wood and Associates. The law firm recently persuaded Dane County Circuit Court Judge William Hanrahan to declare Wis. Stat. § 346.67 facially unconstitutional and to grant their motion to dismiss a felony Hit and Run—Injury complaint. Judge Hanrahan issued an oral ruling. The transcript has not yet been prepared, so we can’t link to the decision. Adam, however, agreed to lay out the issues for On Point. Here’s Adam:

Click here to read the Iowa County Circuit Court’s July 7th decision declaring that §165.95(1)(a) and (3)(c), which bars persons charged with violent offenses from participating in drug treatment court, violates  substantive due process as applied and procedural due process on its face. The court says its decision has the effect of a permanent statewide injunction against enforcement of the statute. The State agrees.