In MATTER OF BAS: STATE v. Bas
This text of 397 N.W.2d 114 (In MATTER OF BAS: STATE v. Bas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Wisconsin primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
IN the MATTER OF B.A.S., Alleged to be Alcoholic:
STATE of Wisconsin, Appellant,
v.
B.A.S., Respondent.
Court of Appeals of Wisconsin.
*292 For the appellant, the cause was submitted on the briefs of Danni L. Caldwell, assistant corporation counsel for Waukesha County.
For the respondent, the cause was submitted on the brief of Mark Lukoff, first assistant state public defender.
BROWN, P.J.
The state appeals from an order dismissing a proceeding for the involuntary commitment of B.A.S., an alleged alcoholic. The trial court ruled that in order to hold a person involuntarily past the time set for preliminary hearing, a petition of three adults must be filed. Because no such petition was of record, the court dismissed the action. The state claims that if an alleged alcoholic is committed under certain emergency provisions of the statutes, a three person petition for further involuntary commitment is not necessary. We disagree and affirm.
This was originally a one-judge appeal pursuant to sec. 752.31(2), Stats. Because the issue presented is one of public importance and is capable and likely of repetition, the case was brought before the full panel pursuant to sec. 809.41(3), Stats.
Resolution of the issue requires interpretation of sec. 51.45, Stats., which is a substantial adoption of the Uniform Alcoholism and Intoxication Treatment Act. Interpretation of statutes is a question of law. Wis. Bingo Supply & Equip. Co. v. Wis. Bingo Control Bd., 88 Wis.2d 293, 308, 276 N.W.2d 716, 723 (1979). We decide questions of law independently without deference to the decision of the trial court. Ball v. Dist. No. 4, Area Bd., 117 Wis.2d 529, 537, 345 N.W.2d 389, 394 (1984).
*293 Section 51.45(13), Stats., concerns involuntary commitment of alleged alcoholics. Section 51.45(13)(a) states that a person may be committed upon the petition of three adults, at least one of whom has personal knowledge of the conduct and condition of the person sought to be committed. Supporting affidavits must accompany the petition. Upon receipt of a proper petition, the court may order the alleged alcoholic to be temporarily committed. Section 51.45(13)(b). A preliminary hearing must be held no later than forty-eight hours after receipt of the petition. Section 51.45(13)(b)4. If a finding of probable cause is made, a final hearing must be held within fourteen days. Section 51.45(13)(e).
The state correctly observes, however, that the procedure described in sec. 51.45(13), Stats., is not the only method for temporarily committing a person involuntarily under the Act. The state focuses on sec. 51.45(12), entitled "emergency commitment." Under this section, if an intoxicated person has threatened to inflict or has inflicted harm on himself or herself or another and is likely to inflict such harm unless committed, a three person petition is unnecessary. Only one person is required to petition the court. Section 51.45(12)(b). This section may also be used if a person is "incapacitated" by alcohol. Section 51.45(12)(a). The court or court commissioner may then order the person temporarily committed "pending the outcome of the preliminary hearing under sub. (13)(d)." Section 51.45(12)(c)1.
The state argues that once an alleged alcoholic's initial commitment is obtained, either by a one person petition or a three person petition, the court then has authority to hear the resultant preliminary hearing and, *294 if probable cause for commitment is found, the final commitment hearing.
Thus, when B.A.S. was committed upon petition of a police officer reciting that she attempted physical harm upon her husband, threatened both her husband and son and was intoxicated, the state concludes that this petition suffices throughout the remainder of the proceedings.
We disagree. Section 51.45(12)(e), Stats., specifies that:
[n]o person committed under this subsection [emergency commitment] shall be detained in any treatment facility beyond the time set for a preliminary hearing....If a petition for a involuntary commitment under sub. (13) has been filed and a finding of probable cause for believing the patient is in need of commitment has been made under sub. (13)(d), the person may be detained until the petition has been heard and determined. [Emphasis added.]
The language is clear. The one person petition is sufficient to commit a person on an emergency basis until the preliminary hearing. Usually, the hearing must take place within forty-eight hours of the one person petition. Section 51.45(12)(c)4.[1] The above language, however, explicitly commands that a person may not be held beyond this time period unless a petition for involuntary commitment under subsec. (13) has been filed. Thus, it is clear from the statute itself that a three person petition is necessary to keep the person committed beyond *295 the time set for preliminary hearing. This is so even if temporary commitment stems from an earlier emergency petition under sec. 51.45(12).
The state claims that this interpretation works unreasonable results and hampers the legislature's efforts in dealing with alcoholics by ignoring the purpose of sec. 51.45(12), Stats. The state claims that the purpose of the emergency section is to commit individuals for a longer than temporary period; that to read it otherwise renders the section superfluous.
The state asserts that if emergency commitment under subsec. (12) is limited to short term commitment, it serves no different purpose than that afforded by subsec. (11), relating to treatment of incapacitated persons. Subsection (11) authorizes police to involuntarily place an intoxicated person in protective custody for up to 72 hours. Section 51.45(11)(b) and (d), Stats. The state concludes that subsec. (11) and subsec. (12) fulfill the same purposes if the statute is to be interpreted in the manner that the trial court has read it and subsec. (12) is therefore superfluous.
Again, we disagree. Subsections (11) and (12) have different procedures and different purposes. Subsection (11) needs no petition; subsec. (12) does. Subsection (11) allows only a maximum of 72 hours detention. Subsection (12) allows another 48 hours beyond the 72 hours if a petition is filed. The purpose of subsec. (11) is detailed in the commissioners' note to the Uniform Alcoholism and Intoxication Treatment Act:
A small minority of intoxicated persons are "incapacitated" in that they are unconscious or incoherent or similarly so impaired in judgment that they cannot make a rational decision with regard to their need for treatment. Section [11](b) authorizes the *296 police ... to take such individuals into protective custody and to a public treatment facility for emergency care. This is intended to assure that those most seriously in need of care will get it.
....
Section [11](d) provides that an incapacitated person can be held at a treatment facility without consent or further civil procedures for not longer than 48 hours.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
397 N.W.2d 114, 134 Wis. 2d 291, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-matter-of-bas-state-v-bas-wisctapp-1986.