Open Carry court case: West Allis City Courthouse on Tuesday February 17th at 8 AM

[Shotgun]

imported post

jrm wrote:

Shotgun wrote:

jrm wrote:

2. Because this was a municipal ordinance case, there was no possibility of jail time.

I don't believe that's true, because failure or refusal to pay can result in jail time for an ordinance violation.

(See the last portion of my post immediately above.)

That would be jail for refusing to pay a fine, not jail as punishment for the civil offense.

Well, wrong. It specifically states that in lieu of payment the "punishment" will be jail. It's not just refusal to pay, but inability to pay for some people. Either way they'll go to jail. If you are willing and able to pay, then jail can be avoided, but it's an option and a possibility. For those who cannot pay it's not even an option. To say there's "no possibility" of jail time for a municipal ordinance violation means it is impossible to go to jail for such a violation. Anyone who has spent time in jail for municipal violations would probably disagree.

 

[Pointman]

imported post

*

 

[jrm]

imported post

Shotgun wrote:

jrm wrote:

Shotgun wrote:

jrm wrote:

2. Because this was a municipal ordinance case, there was no possibility of jail time.

I don't believe that's true, because failure or refusal to pay can result in jail time for an ordinance violation.

(See the last portion of my post immediately above.)

That would be jail for refusing to pay a fine, not jail as punishment for the civil offense.

Well, wrong. It specifically states that in lieu of payment the "punishment" will be jail. It's not just refusal to pay, but inability to pay for some people. Either way they'll go to jail. If you are willing and able to pay, then jail can be avoided, but it's an option and a possibility. For those who cannot pay it's not even an option. To say there's "no possibility" of jail time for a municipal ordinance violation means it is impossible to go to jail for such a violation. Anyone who has spent time in jail for municipal violations would probably disagree.

I know that's what the ordinance says, but that's not what the statute says. The ordinance cannot exceed the scope of the statute, and to the extent that it does, it is illegal and unenforceable.

It is absolutely illegal (and unconstitutional) to jail someone for an inability to pay a fine. Before you can be jailed for not paying a fine, the court must hold a hearing to determine if you have the ability to pay. If you demonstrate at the hearing that you are unable to pay, you can not be jailed.

I agree that it is possible, as an indirect result of being found guilty of committing a civil offense, you can go to jail (for refusing to pay a fine). But, a civil offense, by definition, does not include jail as a possibility of punishment. If it does include jail as a possibility, then it is a crime, by definition, and beyond the jurisdiction of the municipal court.

 

[jrm]

imported post

Pointman wrote:

My understanding is the felony charges were dropped, but he was initially facing potential prison time. Then he was facing criminal charges and jail time, and those were dropped. I don't know how or why they were dropped, but he was still out on felony bail during the hearing. He should be fine now, unless the city appeals or continues to refuse to return his property, or the city arrests him again. From what the judge and police department said, it sounds like this might not bee over.

There's no telling what the police put down for the charge (they can put down anything) when they arrest someone. The only thing that counts is what the DA/prosecutor actually file charges under. The down side is that, as PM points out, bail is set based on what the police put down. It is possible, however, to get bail reduced if the charges filed end up being drastically less than what the police put down. Bail in WI tends to be set pretty low for all but serious felonies, though.

 

[Pointman]

imported post

*

 

[apjonas]

imported post

jrm wrote:

There's no telling what the police put down for the charge (they can put down anything) when they arrest someone. The only thing that counts is what the DA/prosecutor actually file charges under. The down side is that, as PM points out, bail is set based on what the police put down. It is possible, however, to get bail reduced if the charges filed end up being drastically less than what the police put down. Bail in WI tends to be set pretty low for all but serious felonies, though.

Given that most people cannot come up with $1000, much less $10,000 or have property to put up, signature release a/o nominal bail should be the rule.

 

[jrm]

imported post

apjonas wrote:

Given that most people cannot come up with $1000, much less $10,000 or have property to put up, signature release a/o nominal bail should be the rule.

I heartily agree. In fact, I think most offenses should be non-arrestable. Catch and release (with a citation or summons).