CAR SEIZURE LAW UPHELD BY HIGH COURT

Madison -- In a split decision Friday, the Supreme Court upheld a state law
that allows authorities to seize the car of a drunken driver who has three
or more convictions.

The 5-2 decision was the high court's first ruling on the 1993 law. The law
was adopted after the death of a 4-year-old Wauwatosa boy, Jon Port, who
was killed in an accident caused by a drunken driver with five convictions.

The case before the high court involved Lance T. Konrath, 27, of Waukesha,
who was arrested Nov. 15, 1993, for drunken driving, his fifth offense. As
the result of a plea bargain, he was convicted of both that charge and
fleeing an officer.

Waukesha County Circuit Judge Joseph E. Wimmer sent Konrath to jail for one
year, fined him $2,000 plus costs, revoked his license for three years and
ordered an alcohol assessment.

In addition, Wimmer directed the Town of Pewaukee Police Department to
seize Konrath's 1988 Pontiac Firebird, which he had been driving at the
time of his arrest. According to court records, police were unable to
locate the car.

On appeal, Konrath argued that the law was unconstitutional on several
grounds. First, he argued that it was so broad that it allowed confiscation
of any car, not necessarily the one the drunken driver owned and drove
while drunk.

Konrath also claimed the seizure of his car, on top of the fine, jail term
and license revocation, was punishing him twice for the same crime, which
violates the constitution's double-jeopardy clause. Finally, he said, his
due process rights were denied.

A state appeals court rejected his appeal, and the Supreme Court upheld
that decision Friday. The high court ruled that in this instance, the new
law was constitutional. Konrath could not argue the law was so broad as to
allow confiscation of any vehicle because he conceded the car used in his
offense was his car.

The court did not go beyond the facts in the Konrath case and consider
situations in which a drunken driver is driving someone else's vehicle, or
whether authorities could seize another car that a drunken driver owns but
didn't use in committing an offense.

The court also ruled that seizing Konrath's car was not punishment but a
civil remedial action, a precautionary move to assure the safety of others
on the highways.

Justice N. Patrick Crooks wrote the majority opinion. Chief Justice Shirley
S. Abrahamson dissented, and Justice Ann Walsh Bradley joined Abrahamson in
the dissenting opinion.

Abrahamson said the vehicle seizure law was unconstitutional because the
vehicle claimed by authorities need not be the car driven during the
offense. Furthermore, she said, seizing a vehicle was indeed punishing an
offender twice for the same offense.

"If the Legislature had intended (the statute) to be remedial, it would
have written the statute to permit seizure of the motor vehicle owned and
driven by the convicted driver at the time of the drunk driving offense,"
she wrote.

"But the Legislature did not write the statute this way, and the court
should not interpret the statute to mean what the Legislature did not say,"
Abrahamson said.

Sen. Joanne Huelsman (R-Waukesha), co-sponsor of the bill to allow
confiscation of vehicles, applauded the court's decision.

"Whatever we can do to prevent somebody from driving while drunk is
probably another person who won't get killed on the highway," she said. "We
have tried all kinds of things to keep them from doing that.
Taking the car away is one effort."

Recalling debate on the bill, Huelsman said lawmakers wanted it to apply to
the car the offender was driving, regardless of who owned the vehicle.

"There was much discussion about the fact that if you're dumb enough to let
someone drive your car while they're drunk, then you deserve to lose your
car," Huelsman said. "If you have so little regard for the lives of other
people on the highway that you would let someone drive your car when
they're drunk, then you deserve to lose the car."

In other decisions Friday, the court:

Ruled, 4-3, that marijuana, pipes and other paraphernalia recovered in a
1994 search without a warrant could be used in a case against Jason
Phillips, of Racine. When told that Phillips was selling marijuana,
officers went to his home, found the doors open and entered. They followed
Phillips into his bedroom, where they found the evidence.

Although the officers entered without a warrant, the court said Phillips
let them search his bedroom and on that basis, the evidence should not be
suppressed. The decision reversed an appeals court ruling.

Denied an attempt by a Portage County woman, identified only as Roberta Jo
W., to claim child support from her father. When she was born, the father
was not identified on the birth certificate.

At age 18, she filed a paternity suit as well as a claim for child support
since her birth. A paternity test identified the father with a 99.79%
probability, but he contested her support claim. The trial court ultimately
dismissed it. Citing case law, the lower court said that once a child turns
18, he or she cannot sue a parent for child support. The Supreme Court
agreed.

Checked-by: jwjohnson@netmagic.net (Joel W. Johnson)