Prisoner – Involuntary Commitment and Medication

Listen to this article

WI Supreme Court

Case Name: Marathon County v. D.K.

Case No.: 2020 WI 8

Focus: Prisoner – Involuntary Commitment and Medication

This is a review of an unpublished decision of the court of appeals, Marathon County v. D.K., No. 2017AP2217, unpublished slip op. (Wis. Ct. App. Aug. 7, 2018), affirming the Winnebago County circuit court’s Wis. Stat. ch. 51 orders for involuntary commitment and involuntary medication and treatment. D.K. argues that he should not have been committed because the County failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he was dangerous as defined under Wis. Stat. § 51.20(1)(a)2.b. (2015-16). The County disagrees, and also argues that D.K.’s commitment is a moot issue.

At the final hearing, the County had to prove by clear and convincing evidence that D.K. was mentally ill, a proper subject for commitment, and dangerous. Wis. Stat. § 51.20(1)(a). The circuit court concluded that Winnebago County met its burden of proof, ordered D.K.’s involuntary commitment for six months, and ordered involuntary medication and treatment. The court of appeals affirmed. It concluded that D.K.’s threats and plans to strangle police officers and kill other people established a “‘reasonable fear . . . of serious physical harm’ under § 51.20(1)(a)2.b,” and, therefore, “the circuit court’s dangerousness determination . . . was supported by the evidence.” D.K., No. 2017AP2217, unpublished slip op., ¶11. On review, we are asked to decide two issues: (1) whether D.K.’s challenge to his commitment order is moot; and (2) whether there was clear and convincing evidence that D.K. was dangerous under § 51.20(1)(a)2.b.

We conclude that D.K.’s commitment is not a moot issue because it still subjects him to a firearms ban. We also conclude that there was clear and convincing evidence at the final hearing that D.K. was dangerous as defined under Wis. Stat. 51.20(1)(a)2.b. Thus, we affirm the court of appeals.

Affirmed

Concur: REBECCA GRASSL BRADLEY, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which KELLY, J., joined.

Dissent: DALLET, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which ANN WALSH BRADLEY, J., joined.

Full Text

Derek A Hawkins is trademark corporate counsel for Harley-Davidson. Hawkins oversees the prosecution and maintenance of the Harley-Davidson’s international trademark portfolio in emerging markets.