Opinion ID: 1977253
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Nature of actions for violation of municipal ordinances.

Text: The petitioner's final contention is that actions for violation of municipal ordinances are in reality criminal, and not civil, prosecutions, and thus the municipality, since it was not a sovereign, lacked authority to prosecute her. Petitioner concedes that Wisconsin law is directly contrary to this proposition, but argues that this law is patently erroneous and is a manifest hypocrisy. Sec. 66.12 (1) (a), Stats., provides in part: An action for violation of a city or village ordinance, resolution or bylaw is a civil action. . . . Sec. 260.05, Stats., states: ... A criminal action is prosecuted by the state against a person charged with a public offense, for the punishment thereof. Every other is a civil action. Sec. 939.12, Stats., provides in part: . . . Conduct punishable only by a forfeiture is not a crime. This court has on numerous occasions considered this same argument, and rejected it. [13] There are several fundamental reasons for this position. The first is that only the state is the sovereign, and that only an offense against the sovereign is a crime. [14] Another reason is that violations of municipal ordinances are minor offenses for which a forfeiture is the only permissible direct punishment. Petitioner contends otherwise, since there is a possibility of a suspension or revocation of her driver's license, or of imprisonment if she does not pay the fine which may be levied. [15] However, suspension or revocation of a driver's license occurs, not as a direct punishment for violation of a municipal traffic ordinance, but only because these ordinances are in strict conformity with state traffic statutes. [16] When this is the case, the state may fairly suspend or revoke the license it has issued, and such suspension or revocation is incidental to the forfeiture penalty imposed for violation of the municipal ordinance. In regard to the remote possibility of imprisonment in a case like this one, such imprisonment can only occur if the fine is not paid. It is not, therefore, part of the direct punishment for violation of the municipal ordinance, but an incidental means of enforcing and making effective payment of the fine. [17] By the Court. Judgment affirmed.