State v. Alger, 841 N.W.2d 329

In 2004, Wisconsin filed a ch. 980 commitment petition seeking Alger's commitment as a sexually violent person.
A 2-day trial led to a jury verdict that Alger was sexually violent and a court order committing him to a secure facility.
Alger filed discharge petitions in 2006 and 2007, which the circuit court denied.
Wis. Stat. § 907.02 was amended in 2011 to adopt the Daubert reliability standard for expert testimony, applicable to actions commenced on or after Feb. 1, 2011.
Alger petitioned for discharge in 2011 and a subsequent petition in Nov. 2011; the circuit court merged the petitions for trial and ruled on them.
The court ultimately held that § 907.02(1) does not apply to Alger's discharge petitions and upheld the denial of discharge.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 907.02(1) applies to discharge petitions	Alger argues new reliability standard should apply.	State contends discharge petitions are not new actions and thus § 907.02(1) does not apply.	§ 907.02(1) does not apply to Alger's discharge petitions.
Whether applying § 907.02(1) to Alger's discharge petitions would violate equal protection	Disparate treatment for post-2011 actions is unconstitutional.	Legislature rationally limited application to actions commenced after 2011; pending cases allowed.	Statute survives rational basis; no equal protection violation.

Charolais Breeding Ranches, Ltd. v. FPC Secs. Corp., 90 Wis. 2d 97 (Ct. App. 1979) (recognizes arguments not refuted as conceded)
Ricco v. Riva, 266 Wis. 2d 696 (Wis. Ct. App. 2003) (admissibility standards prior to Daubert)
State v. Mattes, 175 Wis. 2d 572 (Ct. App. 1993) (dictionary definition as interpretive aid)
State v. Smet, 288 Wis. 2d 525 (Wis. Ct. App. 2005) (equal protection and rational basis framework)
McManus v. State, 152 Wis. 2d 113 (Ct. App. 1989) (rational basis review standard for equal protection)
Quintana v. Wisconsin, 2008 WI 33 (Wis. 2008) (equal protection substantive framework)
Dobbert v. Florida, 432 U.S. 282 (U.S. 1977) (line-drawing and timing of statutes)
Sperry & Hutchinson Co. v. Rhodes, 220 U.S. 502 (U.S. 1911) (statutory timing and transition considerations)
Aicher v. Wisconsin Patients Comp. Fund, 2000 WI 98 (Wis. 2000) (equal protection interpretation in Wisconsin)
Kalal v. Circuit Court, 271 Wis. 2d 633 (2004) (statutory interpretation methodology)
Evans v. Thompson, 881 F.2d 117 (4th Cir. 1989) (rational basis and timing of legislative changes)
Montgomery Ward & Co. v. DOR, 142 Wis. 2d 772 (Ct. App. 1987) (reasonableness of date-based classifications)