State v. Rosen
| Decision Date | 07 April 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 681,681 |
| Citation | 240 N.W.2d 168,72 Wis.2d 200 |
| Parties | STATE of Wisconsin, Appellant, v. David M. ROSEN, Respondent. (1974). |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
Bronson C. La Follette, Atty. Gen., and James H. McDermott, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.
Michael J. Milliken and Marcovich, Cochrane & Milliken, S.C., Superior, for respondent.
The issue in this case concerns the procedural requirements in forfeiture actions under ch. 161, Stats., the Uniform Controlled Substances Act.
Sec. 161.55, Stats., in pertinent part provides:
'(1) The following are subject to forfeiture:
'(a) All controlled substances which have been manufactured, distributed, dispensed or acquired in violation of this chapter;
'(b) All raw materials, products and equipment of any kind which are used, or intended for use, in manufacturing, compounding, processing, delivering, importing or exporting any controlled substance in violation of this chapter;
'. . ..
'(d) All vehicles, as defined in s. 939.22(44), which are used, or intended for use, to transport, or in any manner to facilitate the transportation, for the purpose of sale or receipt of property described in pars. (a) and (b), . . .'
Property may be seized, prior to the institution of forfeiture proceedings, in the following manner, sec. 161.55(2):
'(a) The seizure is incident to an arrest or a search under a search warrant or an inspection under an administrative inspection warrant;
'(b) The property subject to seizure has been the subject of a prior judgment in favor of the state in a criminal injunction or forfeiture proceeding based upon this chapter;
'(c) The officer or employe has probable cause to believe that the property is directly or indirectly dangerous to health of safety; or
'(d) The officer or employe has probable cause to believe that the property was used or is intended to be used in violation of this chapter.'
Sec. 161.555(2), 1973 Stats., addresses the manner in which forfeiture actions under sec. 161.55 are to proceed.
Sec. 161.555(2), 1973 Stats., provides:
'(b) Upon service of a verified answer, the action shall be set for hearing within 60 days of the service of the answer.'
On June 12, 1974, David M. Rosen was served with a summons, complaint and affidavit. These documents commenced a forfeiture action of a 1971 Opel Automobile belonging to Rosen which had been seized by the police on May 29, 1974, pursuant to the provisions of sec. 161.555, Stats.
By letter dated August 23, 1974, the state notified counsel for Rosen that a hearing date for the action had been set for September 3, 1974. The date of the letter of notification was 67 days after the service of the answer and 64 days after the answer had been filed.
According to the affidavit of the secretary for the district attorney's office, counsel for Rosen appeared in that office on or about August 27, 1974. He informed her at that time that he had obtained an adjournment from the circuit court and that the new hearing date had been set for October 16, 1974.
On September 9, 1974, Rosen filed a motion to dismiss. Hearing was held on the motion on October 16, 1974, and on October 31, 1974, the trial court filed a memorandum opinion on the issue addressed by the motion. This was followed by entry of an order on November 4, 1974, dismissing the complaint for lack of trial court jurisdiction, because the hearing on the action had not been set within the 60-day time period prescribed by sec. 161.555, 1973 Stats., supra. The state appeals from this order.
On April 23, 1975, the state moved this court to strike certain portions of Rosen's brief which deal with the events surrounding his request for an adjournment of the original hearing date. These matters have bearing on the state's assertion that, even if sec. 161.555, Stats., is jurisdictional, Rosen waived his right to object to the defect. This court deferred its decision on the motion until the case came on for determination in relation to the merits.
The specific issues presented for determination are:
1. Was the trial court deprived of jurisdiction by the fact that the hearing required by sec. 161.555, Stats., was not set until more than 60 days following service of the answer?
2. Assuming the defect is jurisdictional, has respondent waived his right to object thereto?
JURISDICTION.
The state urges that sec. 161.555(2)(b), Stats., is merely directory in nature and that failure to comply strictly with the time limitation imposed should not result in loss of trial court jurisdiction.
The position taken by the state, though supported to some extent by rules of statutory construction, cannot be accepted in light of the nature and context of the statutory provision here in question. We agree with the determination made by the trial court. The time limitation set forth in this statute is mandatory.
Sec. 161.555, 1973 Stats., is part of the state's controlled substances code. The majority of the provisions are taken from the Uniform Controlled Substances Act, 9 U.L.A., Master Ed., page 145. However, sec. 161.555 is not a part of the uniform act, but rather an addition made by the state legislature. By its terms, it controls the procedures to be followed in conducting a forfeiture action which has been commenced pursuant to sec. 161.55. This court has adopted the general rule of liberal construction for procedural statutes, where possible, in order to permit a determination upon the merits of the controversy, Kyncl v. Kenosha County (1968), 37 Wis.2d 547, 555, 556, 155 N.W.2d 583; Huck v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O.R. Co. (1958), 4 Wis.2d 132, 137, 90 N.W.2d 154. Moreover, this court on occasion has held that specific statutory time provisions are merely directory, Appleton v. Outagamie County (1928), 197 Wis. 4, 9, 10, 220 N.W. 393; Application of Clark, (1908), 135 Wis. 437, 444, 445, 115 N.W. 387. Finally, even though the word 'shall' normally is construed to be mandatory, Wauwatosa v. Milwaukee County (1963), 22 Wis.2d 184, 191, 125 N.W.2d 386, some past decisions have construed it as directory where time provisions are involved, Worachek v. Stephenson Town School Dist. (1955), 270 Wis. 116, 124, 70 N.W.2d 657.
In applying the rules of statutory construction, the nature of the proceedings is of particular importance. Pursuant to sec. 161.55(2)(c), Stats., property may be seized before any notice of hearing is given. At least one state court believed that failure to provide preseizure notice and hearing was unconstitutional, City of Everett v. Slade (1973), 83 Wash.2d 80, 515 P.2d 1295. However, the United States Supreme Court recently approved such procedure, Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co. (1974), 416 U.S. 663, 94 S.Ct. 2080, 40 L.Ed.2d 452; see also, Note, 60 Cornell Law Rev. (1975), 467. The constitutionality of such proceeding is not here in question. However, the lack of preseizure notice and hearing serves to emphasize the importance of the forfeiture hearing which this state's legislature has seen fit to provide in sec. 161.555(2).
Forfeiture actions have a long history and, as the trial court noted, are 'rough' statutes. Use of the vehicle seizure and forfeiture provision in the context of the controlled substances act has been justified on the ground that drug traffic should be circumscribed by deprivation of the means for furthering illicit activities, although the effectiveness of the measure is open to question. See: Comment, Vehicle Forfeiture in Arizona: Burrage and the Extension of the Quasi-Criminal Doctrine, 1972 Law and the Social Order 476, 483. Many courts have questioned the fairness of the action, especially where the property rights of the innocent third parties are extinguished, Annot. 50 A.L.R.3d 172, or where the value of the property is great in comparison to the violation. 1 However, the United States Supreme Court has refused to mitigate to any great extent the harsh effects of statutory forfeiture provisions, Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co., supra. In view of the continued vitality and validity of the substance of forfeiture actions, we are of the opinion the procedural safeguards which are statutorily provided should be strictly construed and the time limitations therein provided must be considered mandatory.
While it is true that sec. 161.555, Stats., is procedural, it is a part of the forfeiture statute insofar as it provides a means to the owner or interest holder to recover the vehicle if the state cannot show that the seizure was in compliance with the requirements of sec. 161.55(2), or that the exceptions in sec. 161.55(1)(d) are not applicable. Because of the provision for seizure during the period prior to the hearing, the owner is deprived of the use of his vehicle regardless of whether it is actually subject to forfeiture or has been seized in compliance with statutory...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Teigen v. Wis. Elections Comm'n
...with a directory statute may not produce the same consequence as a failure to comply with a mandatory statute. See State v. Rosen, 72 Wis. 2d 200, 207, 240 N.W.2d 168 (1976). The Sommerfeld majority concluded that construing the in-person delivery requirement as mandatory for votes to count......
-
State ex rel. Teaching Assistants Ass'n v. University of Wisconsin-Madison
...court of subject matter jurisdiction over the action. See: Kegonsa Jt. Sanit. Dist., 87 Wis.2d 131, 274 N.W.2d 598; State v. Rosen, 72 Wis.2d 200, 240 N.W.2d 168 (1976); Evans v. Dept. of Local Affairs & Development, 62 Wis.2d 622, 215 N.W.2d 408 (1974); Cudahy v. Department of Revenue, 66 ......
-
Krimstock v. Kelly
...answer but may be continued for cause or upon stipulation of the parties." Wis. Stat. § 961.555(2)(b); see also State v. Rosen, 72 Wis.2d 200, 240 N.W.2d 168, 171-72 (1976) (holding that the 60-day rule under the Wisconsin controlled substances act is mandatory and that failure to set the h......
-
Angel Lace M., In Interest of
...imposed for its violation. (Citations omitted). Eby v. Kozarek, 153 Wis.2d 75, 80, 450 N.W.2d 249 (1990) (quoting State v. Rosen, 72 Wis.2d 200, 207, 240 N.W.2d 168 (1976)). Looking first to the objectives of the adoption statutes, the legislature has provided, in sec. 48.01(2), that the pa......