Opinion ID: 2163200
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: issues

Text: Was the petitioner entitled to recover costs and reasonable attorney fees incurred in defense of an action brought by the city to enforce sec. 22.16(1) of the City of Janesville's Code of Municipal Ordinances, pursuant to sec. 814.025, Stats.? On review, the petitioner, Jilleen Wiskia, contends that the court of appeals erred in reversing the trial court's finding that the action commenced by the city of Janesville was frivolous and furthermore claims that she was entitled to recover reasonable attorneys fees pursuant to sec. 814.025, Stats. She also argues that the trial court's award of attorneys' fees should be increased, despite the fact that the court of appeals did not deal with the question of whether the amount of attorneys' fees awarded was adequate because the court of appeals ruled that the action was not frivolous and thus sec. 814.025 did not apply to this case. [1] In Milwaukee v. Leschke, 57 Wis.2d 159, 203 N.W.2d 669 (1973), this court stated: In proceedings for violation of municipal ordinances there is no liability for, or right to, costs in the absence of statutory authorization. It is stated in 9 McQuillin, Municipal Corporations (3d ed. rev.), p. 712, sec. 27.43, that: `Costs are the creatures of statutes and cannot be awarded unless expressly provided. At common law they were not recoverable by either party in any case, civil or criminal. It has often been held that in the absence of statute providing therefor, costs cannot be taxed against a municipality in cases for violations of ordinances, no matter whether the case is decided against it or not. . . .' This court has consistently held that at common law costs were unknown, and that in this state costs are regulated exclusively by statute as a matter of legislative discretion . . . [citations omitted]. In the absence of a statute authorizing costs they are not recoverable . . . [citations omitted]. Forfeiture actions for municipal ordinance violations are governed by chs. 66, 288, 299 and 345, Stats. Id. at 161-62. See also: State ex rel. Korne v. Wolke, 79 Wis.2d 22, 255 N.W.2d 446 (1977). Sec. 814.025, Stats., allows a successful party to recover reasonable attorney fees if the action commenced by the plaintiff is found, at any time during the proceedings or upon judgment, to be frivolous by the court. The question of the application and interpretation of sec. 814.025, effective April 7, 1978 (Public Laws 1977, ch. 209, § 1) has not been previously considered by this court. It should be noted that this court has consistently held, in a number of cases, that a prosecuting attorney possesses broad discretion in determining whether to charge a defendant and proceed to trial. In State ex rel. Kurkierewicz v. Cannon, 42 Wis.2d 368, 166 N.W.2d 255 (1969), the . . . leading Wisconsin case regarding the exercise of prosecutorial discretion. . . . [5] this court held that: It is clear that in his functions as a prosecutor he has great discretion in determining whether or not to prosecute. There is no obligation or duty upon a district attorney to prosecute all complaints that may be filed with him. While it is his duty to prosecute criminals, it is obvious that a great portion of the power of the state has been placed in his hands for him to use in the furtherance of justice, and this does not per se require prosecution in all cases where there appears to be a violation of the law no matter how trivial. In general, the district attorney is not answerable to any other officer of the state in respect to the manner in which he exercises those powers. True, he is answerable to the people, for if he fails in his trust he can be recalled or defeated at the polls. In the event he wilfully fails to perform his duties or is involved in crime, he may be suspended from office by the governor and removed for cause. These, however, are political remedies that go not to directing the performance of specific duties but rather go to the question of fitness for office. The district attorney's function, in general, is of a discretionary type, the performance of which is not compellable in mandamus. 27 C.J.S., p. 648, sec. 10, District and Prosecuting Attorneys, summarizes, correctly we believe, the broad nature of the discretion conferred upon the district attorney: `The prosecuting attorney has wide discretion in the manner in which his duty shall be performed, and such discretion cannot be interfered with by the courts unless he is proceeding, or is about to proceed, without or in excess of jurisdiction. Thus, except as ordained by law, in the performance of official acts he may use his own discretion without obligation to follow the judgment of others who may offer suggestions; and his conclusions in the discharge of his official liabilities and responsibilities are not in any wise subservient to the views of the judge as to the handling of the state's case.' Id. at 378-79. In Lacklear v. State, 86 Wis.2d 603, 273 N.W.2d 334 (1979) this court stated: . . . it must be noted that a prosecutor is accorded a broad range of discretion in the enforcement of ordinances and statutes.  (emphasis supplied). Id. at 609. See also: State v. Johnson, 74 Wis.2d 169, 246 N.W.2d 503 (1976). Similarly, in Whitaker v. State, 83 Wis.2d 368, 265 N.W.2d 575 (1978), this court held that the question of what charges should be issued against a defendant is a matter within the discretion of the prosecuting attorney. . . . Id. at 373. Recently, in State v. Karpinski, 92 Wis.2d 599, 285 N.W.2d 729 (1979), this court stated that it: . . . has repeatedly emphasized that the prosecutor has great discretion in determining whether to commence a prosecution. While it is the prosecutor's duty to prosecute criminal actions, sec. 59.47, Stats., the prosecutor is not required to prosecute all cases in which it appears that the law has been violated. We have characterized the prosecutor's charging discretion as `quasi-judicial' in the sense that it is his duty to administer justice rather than to obtain convictions. Id. at 607. [2, 3] Clearly, in view of the above line of cases, it is well established that prosecuting attorneys and their assistants, whether a district attorney in a criminal action or a city attorney in a quasi-criminal action (an ordinance violation) must necessarily be clothed with broad discretion in deciding whether to charge a defendant or not. We believe that the application of sec. 814.025, Stats., allowing defendants to recover costs for frivolous claims in quasi-criminal ordinance violations would be inconsistent with our reasoning in prior case law allowing a prosecutor to exercise his independent judgment and discretion. If we were to allow the recovery of monetary sanctions in an action subsequently found to be frivolous, we would adversely inhibit the prosecutor's free exercise of discretion and interfere with responsible and effective enforcement of the laws. Therefore, we hold that sec. 814.025, as enacted, is not applicable in quasi-criminal actions (ordinance violations) where the decision to proceed with the action is based on prosecutorial discretion. [4, 5] In the present case, the petitioner, Wiskia, was charged and pled not guilty to a violation of sec. 22.16(1) of the Janesville Code of city ordinances which is derived from sec. 176.30(1) [6] of the statutes. The petitioner contends that the action is civil in nature and thus sec. 814.025, Stats., is applicable. This court, in Milwaukee v. Wuky, 26 Wis.2d 555, 133 N.W.2d 356 (1965), stated that [A] forfeiture action on behalf of a municipality is a hybrid proceeding and as such it has the characteristics of both a criminal and civil action. In Milwaukee v. Cohen, 57 Wis.2d 38, 203 N.W.2d 633 (1973) this court held that: A forfeiture action [for a violation of a municipal ordinance] is a quasi-criminal proceeding where the defendant is required as in criminal cases to enter a plea of guilty, not guilty or nolo contendere. The ordinance in many instances is derived from a criminal statute. Id. at 46. See also: Neenah v. Alsteen, 30 Wis.2d 596, 142 N.W.2d 232 (1966). In State v. Hamley, 137 Wis. 458, 119 N.W. 114 (1909), this court held that: . . . prosecutions for breaches of municipal ordinances are quasi-criminal, such breaches are not offenses against the state and therefore not punishable as such. Id. at 460-61. The present action was thus a quasi-criminal proceeding and as such, sec. 814.025, Stats., is inapplicable. Applications of the statute to the city attorney as prosecutor of quasi-criminal ordinance violations would only serve to interfere with the reasonable exercise of the broad prosecutorial discretion granted him and would be inconsistent with the holdings in State ex rel. Kurkierewicz v. Cannon, supra , Locklear v. State, supra , and the other cases cited above. [6] We recognize that the death of a person, due to excessive drinking at a local tavern, is a matter of community concern and that the prosecuting attorney has the duty to carefully weigh the factors involved before deciding whether or not to prosecute the bartender. In response to a problem of this nature, the state and local municipalities are required, of necessity, to closely regulate all aspects of a tavern operation through strict enforcement of the tavern laws and ordinances. However, the decision of whether to proceed with a prosecution of an individual for violation of the state statute or local ordinance lies within the broad discretion of the prosecutor. We hold, upon a thorough review of the record, the prosecutor exercised reasonable discretion in charging the bartender with a violation of sec. 22.16(1) of the Janesville Code of Municipal Ordinances. Finally, it should be pointed out that our holding that sec. 814.025, Stats., was not intended or designed to be applied in quasi-criminal proceedings does not leave a defendant without alternative means of preventing prosecutorial abuse. In those situations where the prosecutor is an elected official, and if such an abuse of discretion does in fact exist, he is subject to the will of the voter at the next election or even recall (sec. 17.12(1)(a), Stats. [7] ). State ex rel. Kurkierewicz v. Cannon, supra . Where the prosecutor is appointed to the position, he is subject to removal or suspension, pursuant to sec. 17.12(1)(c) & (d) and (3). [8] By the Court. The decision of the court of appeals is affirmed. SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, J. (dissenting on motion for reconsideration). The defendant-appellant Wiskia moved for reconsideration on the grounds that this court decided the case on an issue which this court raised sua sponte, without giving the parties an opportunity to address the issue, and that the court's opinion did not consider relevant statutory provisions. The issue whether the trial court has authority to tax costs pursuant to sec. 814.025, Stats., was not raised in the trial court or the court of appeals and was not briefed by either party in this court. This is not a case where the court based its decision on its independent research of an issue raised by the parties; the court based its decision on an issue which was never raised. My review of this case in light of the motion to reconsider leads me to conclude that the court might not have given full consideration to all relevant statutes and might benefit from briefs on the issue. I would grant the motion for reconsideration and give the parties an opportunity to submit briefs.            a b