State v. Wilcenski
2013 WI App 21
| Wis. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Wilcenski charged with second-offense OWI in Waukesha County.
- Waukesha policy releases arrestees on conditions to participate in a pretrial intoxicated driver treatment program if they live in one of ten counties.
- Initial court commissioner informed arrestees that bail would condition participation in the program and related testing.
- Program requires reporting, random testing, education/treatment, and may disclose treatment-related information to court; fees up to $1200; limited public disclosure of certain data.
- Wilcenski moved to discharge or modify pretrial program participation; circuit court found the condition reasonably necessary for public safety.
- Wilcenski chose jail, pled guilty, and appealed on the constitutionality of the program and the bail condition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutionality of pretrial treatment as a bail condition | Wilcenski argues the blanket program violates privacy and searches. | State argues individualized consideration supports the condition and blanket policy is improper only if applied universally. | Individualized assessment upheld; blanket policy invalid. |
| Privacy rights and statutory protections | Pretrial program breaches state health information privacy statutes and confidentiality. | Privacy rights are balanced and limited in pretrial detention; proceedings may disclose certain treatment data. | No violation; limited disclosures and criminal-justice context permit restrictions on privacy. |
| Fourth Amendment searches and drug testing as a condition of release | Mandatory drug testing is an unconstitutional search without warrant/probable cause. | Special needs exception permits testing to protect public safety. | Testing permissible under special needs exception. |
| Judicial discretion in setting bail conditions | Court applied a blanket policy without individualized findings. | Discretion requires case-specific findings; blanket approach is erroneous. | Court did not err in this case due to individualized determination; blanket policy otherwise erroneous. |
Key Cases Cited
- P.P. v. Dane County DHS, 279 Wis. 2d 169 (2005 WI 32) (presumption of constitutionality with exceptions for review)
- State v. Braun, 152 Wis. 2d 500 (Ct. App. 1989) (requirement to show individualized consideration in bail conditions)
- Melone v. State, 240 Wis. 2d 451 (Ct. App. 2000) (discretion in setting bail conditions)
- York v. District of Columbia, 892 P.2d 804 (Cal. 1995) (random drug testing permissible on case-specific factors)
- State v. Guzman, 166 Wis. 2d 577 (1992) (special needs exception to searches in public safety context)
- Whalen v. Roe, 429 U.S. 589 (U.S. 1977) (privacy balancing when state collects private medical information)
- Doe v. Southeastern Pa. Transp. Auth., 72 F.3d 1133 (3d Cir. 1995) (privacy rights balanced against public interests)
- Oliver v. United States, 682 A.2d 186 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (drug testing as a permissible condition in certain contexts)
- Taylor v. State, 226 Wis. 2d 490 (Ct. App. 1999) (court authority to receive information on treatment adherence)