RULING HELPS THE STATE KEEP SEIZED PROPERTY

The Wisconsin Supreme Court on Thursday made it easier for the state to keep
property seized from suspected criminals.

The court decided, 4-3, that prosecutors don't have to comply with state
laws that say they must file forfeiture actions to keep property they
believe was acquired through crime.

Instead, the court said the suspect must file a lawsuit to get the property
back and the state can keep the property if prosecutors show it was probably
connected to criminal activity.

The court acted in the case of Leonard L. Jones, 34, who was sleeping in his
parked and running car when Madison police officer Kevin Linsmeier spotted
him about 5 a.m. on Feb. 1, 1997.

Linsmeier arrested Jones for suspected drunken driving and searched his car.
He found items used to smoke crack cocaine, a scale and $1,783, much of it
in $20 bills. Linsmeier believed the cash was drug money because crack was
most often sold in $20 increments and Jones kept the money in separate wads,
as is typical of dealers.

Jones was charged with possession of drug paraphernalia, but the charge was
dropped after he was imprisoned for other crimes.

Meanwhile, Jones asked then Dane County Circuit Judge Jack Aulik to order
prosecutors to return his money because they hadn't complied with a state
law that requires them to file a forfeiture action within 30 days of a
property seizure. Aulik refused and said the case was governed by a separate
law that says a person seeking the return of seized property must file a
lawsuit and cannot get "contraband" returned.

In affirming Aulik and the 4th District Court of Appeals, the high court
said it would interpret the conflicting laws to avoid requiring prosecutors
to file forfeiture actions. It said people could ask for their property
returned under the forfeiture law only when the state unsuccessfully filed a
forfeiture action.

"We will not impair, without authority or reason, district attorneys'
discretionary decisions of whether to initiate forfeiture proceedings or
not," Justice Jon Wilcox wrote for the majority.

Justices Bill Bablitch, Pat Crooks and Don Steinmetz agreed with Wilcox.
Justice David Prosser agreed with the result for a different reason, while
Justices Ann Walsh Bradley and Shirley Abrahamson dissented.

Bradley said state law requires prosecutors to file forfeiture actions and
the majority had engaged in "interpretive gymnastics" to make the law's
"forfeiture provisions practically meaningless."

"Why would prosecutors willingly proceed under (forfeiture law) and be
saddled with initiation and prosecution burdens if they had a choice?"
Bradley wrote. "The answer is that prosecutors would not if given the
choice."