Always Towing and Recovery, Inc. v. City of Milwaukee, 2021AP000876

Always Towing and its owner Jason Pehowski sued the City of Milwaukee seeking declaratory relief challenging two city ordinances governing nonconsensual tows: the "drop fee" ordinance (Milwaukee Code § 93-47-3) and the "reporting" ordinance (Milwaukee Code § 93-47-2-h).
Drop-fee ordinance: if the vehicle owner/authorized operator arrives before the vehicle is attached, no tow fee is charged; if towing equipment is attached but not fully hooked up the owner may pay a drop fee up to $50 (with a 5-minute payment window).
Reporting ordinance: requires towing businesses to provide the City an electronic, itemized receipt for each nonconsensual tow (excluding repossessions) within 60 days, including special equipment used and costs.
Always Towing argued both ordinances are preempted by state law (Wis. Stat. § 349.13(3m) and Wis. Admin. Code Trans 319.03) and that the reporting ordinance also violates the Fourth Amendment; the circuit court granted summary judgment to the City.
The Court of Appeals affirmed as to the drop-fee ordinance (not preempted) but reversed as to the reporting ordinance (preempted by state law) and remanded with directions to grant summary judgment for Always Towing on the reporting ordinance; the Fourth Amendment claim was not reached on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Milwaukee's drop-fee ordinance is preempted by state law	§349.13(3m) and Trans 319.03 create a comprehensive towing fee scheme and authorize immediate towing; city may not add a new drop-fee category	City: state law is silent when an owner arrives before tow completion; ordinance fills that gap and does not conflict	Not preempted; drop-fee ordinance valid
Whether Milwaukee's reporting ordinance is preempted by state law	§349.13(3m)(d)2 requires towing services to notify local law enforcement of vehicle details and removal location; city ordinance requiring reporting to the City conflicts	City: municipal reporting requirement can coexist with state reporting	Preempted and invalid; reporting ordinance conflicts with state statute
Whether the reporting ordinance violates the Fourth Amendment	Reporting constitutes an unreasonable search/seizure	City: ordinance does not violate the Fourth Amendment; circuit court held no violation	Not addressed on appeal because ordinance held preempted and invalid

Wisconsin Carry, Inc. v. City of Madison, 373 Wis. 2d 543, 892 N.W.2d 233 (2017 WI 19) (sets out preemption tests for municipal ordinances)
DeRosso Landfill Co. v. City of Oak Creek, 200 Wis. 2d 642, 547 N.W.2d 770 (1996) (municipal ordinance void if any preemption test is met)
State ex rel. Kalal v. Circuit Ct. for Dane Cnty., 271 Wis. 2d 633, 681 N.W.2d 110 (2004 WI 58) (principles of statutory interpretation)
State ex rel. Michalek v. LeGrand, 77 Wis. 2d 520, 253 N.W.2d 505 (1977) (municipal and state regulation may coexist when they do not conflict)
Racine Cnty. v. Oracular Milwaukee, Inc., 323 Wis. 2d 682, 781 N.W.2d 88 (2010 WI 25) (standard of review for summary judgment is de novo)
State v. Blalock, 150 Wis. 2d 688, 442 N.W.2d 514 (Ct. App. 1989) (explains that appellate courts may decline to reach constitutional claims when a case is resolved on other grounds)