City of Milwaukee v. Washington

2007 WI 104 (Wis. 2007) · Supreme Court of Wisconsin · July 17, 2007

Summary

The Wisconsin Supreme Court reviewed whether a circuit court could confine Ruby Washington to the Milwaukee County Criminal Justice Facility for failing to comply with tuberculosis treatment orders. The court held that Wis. Stat. § 252.07(9) permits confinement in a jail if proper treatment and disease prevention are provided and no less restrictive alternative exists, and that cost may be considered only after those requirements are satisfied. The court affirmed the confinement order under the tuberculosis statute but rejected remedial contempt as an independent basis for confinement.

Holdings

  1. A jail may be a permissible place of confinement for a person with noninfectious tuberculosis who is at high risk of developing infectious tuberculosis and has failed to comply with a prescribed treatment regimen, provided that the jail provides proper care and treatment, prevents the spread of disease, and no less restrictive alternative exists.
  2. The phrase no less restrictive alternative in Wis. Stat. § 252.07(9)(a)3. applies to the place of confinement as well as to the fact of confinement.
  3. A circuit court may consider the relative costs of placement options, but only after determining that the options satisfy the requirements of proper medical care and disease prevention and that none is significantly less restrictive than the others. Cost considerations must be supported by evidence rather than assumptions.
  4. Remedial contempt under Wis. Stat. § 785.04(1) did not provide an independent basis for Washington's confinement in this case, and the court of appeals' contrary discussion was disavowed.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Wis. Stat. § 252.07(9)(a) authorizes confinement in a jail of a person with noninfectious tuberculosis who is at high risk of developing infectious tuberculosis and has failed to comply with a prescribed treatment regimen.
  2. Whether the statute's requirement that no less restrictive alternative exist applies to the place of confinement as well as to the fact of confinement.
  3. Whether a circuit court may consider the relative costs of alternative placements after determining that the placements satisfy the statutory requirements.
  4. Whether remedial contempt under Wis. Stat. § 785.04(1) independently authorized Washington's confinement.

Disposition

affirmed

Cases Cited (16)

  • State v. Manuel, 2005 WI 75, 281 Wis. 2d 554, 697 N.W.2d 811(followed)
  • Landwehr v. Landwehr, 2006 WI 64, 291 Wis. 2d 49, 715 N.W.2d 180(followed)
  • State ex rel. Kalal v. Circuit Court, 2004 WI 58, 271 Wis. 2d 633, 681 N.W.2d 110(followed)
  • Robin K. v. Lamanda M., 2006 WI 68, 291 Wis. 2d 333, 718 N.W.2d 38(followed)
  • Wis. Citizens Concerned for Cranes & Doves v. DNR, 2004 WI 40, 270 Wis. 2d 318, 677 N.W.2d 612(followed)
  • D.E.R. v. La Crosse County, 155 Wis. 2d 240, 455 N.W.2d 239 (1990)(distinguished)
  • Dunn County v. Judy K., 2002 WI 87, 254 Wis. 2d 383, 647 N.W.2d 799(followed)
  • State v. Blalock, 150 Wis. 2d 688, 442 N.W.2d 514 (Ct. App. 1989)(followed)
  • State ex rel. N.A. v. G.S., 156 Wis. 2d 338, 456 N.W.2d 867 (Ct. App. 1990)(followed)
  • Schroeder v. Schroeder, 100 Wis. 2d 625, 302 N.W.2d 475 (1981)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 16.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Download CaseDownload Case DataDownload Case and DataDownload AI Instructions

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…

More from Wisconsin Supreme Court