State v. Wilcenski
827 N.W.2d 642, 2013 WI App 21, 346 Wis. 2d 145 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A court erroneously exercises its discretion when it imposes a blanket policy for bail conditions without making an individualized determination based on the facts of the defendant's case. However, requiring a defendant to participate in pretrial alcohol treatment and monitoring as a condition of bail is not per se unconstitutional if it is reasonably necessary based on an individualized assessment.
Facts:
- Joseph J. Wilcenski was stopped by a police officer for driving a vehicle without his lights on at 2:12 a.m.
- Wilcenski was charged with his second offense of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant (OWI).
- Waukesha County had a policy that required all persons arrested for a second or subsequent OWI, who lived within a ten-county area, to be released only on the condition that they participate in a pretrial intoxicated driver treatment program.
- At his initial court appearance, a court commissioner informed Wilcenski and other defendants that this program would be a mandatory condition of their bail.
- The program required defendants to report to a caseworker twice a week, submit to random drug and alcohol testing, and participate in treatment or educational classes.
- Participation in the program involved paying fees and signing a release of information, allowing the program to disclose treatment status and test results to the court and other parties.
Procedural Posture:
- Joseph J. Wilcenski was charged in Waukesha County with second-offense OWI.
- At his initial appearance, a court commissioner imposed a condition of bail requiring him to participate in the Waukesha County Intoxicated Driver Intervention Program, pursuant to a county-wide policy.
- Wilcenski filed a motion in the circuit court to be discharged from the program, arguing the blanket policy was improper and violated his constitutional rights.
- The circuit court denied the motion, finding that after an individualized review of Wilcenski's case, the condition was reasonably necessary to protect the community.
- The court ordered Wilcenski to either participate in the program or report to jail; Wilcenski chose to report to jail.
- Wilcenski later pled guilty to the OWI charge and served his sentence.
- Wilcenski appealed the circuit court's denial of his motion regarding the bail condition to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a court erroneously exercise its discretion by imposing a blanket policy that requires all defendants charged with a second or subsequent OWI to participate in a pretrial treatment program as a condition of bail, without an individualized assessment of the defendant?
Opinions:
Majority - Reilly, J.
Yes. A court that follows a blanket policy mandating participation in a pretrial program as a condition of release for all persons based on only one factor (the nature of the offense), without making an individualized determination, erroneously exercises its discretion in setting bail. The term 'discretion' contemplates a reasoning process based on the facts in the record of an individual case, not a 'one size fits all' system. However, the court found that the bail condition imposed on Wilcenski himself was permissible because, after he challenged the blanket policy, the circuit court conducted an individualized review and determined the condition was reasonably necessary to protect the community. The court also rejected Wilcenski's constitutional claims, finding that pretrial detainees have a reduced expectation of privacy and that drug and alcohol testing serves the 'special need' of public safety, making it a valid exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle that judicial discretion in setting bail conditions cannot be delegated to a blanket, pre-determined policy based solely on the charged offense. It requires trial courts to create a record demonstrating an individualized assessment of why specific non-monetary conditions are necessary for a particular defendant. While upholding the constitutionality of pretrial treatment and monitoring programs, the case serves as a check on administrative convenience, ensuring that conditions of release are tailored to the individual rather than being automatically imposed on a class of defendants. This forces courts to justify restrictive bail conditions on a case-by-case basis, protecting defendants from potentially unnecessary and burdensome pretrial obligations.
