Opinion ID: 2151113
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Have police officers and district attorneys been removed from the enforcement of sec. 161.30, Stats.?

Text: The appellant was placed under arrest for sale and illegal possession of cocaine with intent to sell. The charge against the defendant was brought by the district attorney of Milwaukee county. Appellant claims that these two law enforcement agencies have no jurisdiction as to the enforcement of sec. 161.30, Stats. Appellant is in error. The objection to police and district attorney authority to act in this case is without basis. It is true that sec. 161.30 (11), Stats., states: . . . The department [of justice] and the examining board [pharmacy] shall be responsible for the enforcement of this section. However, sec. 161.19 (1) provides for the enforcement of ch. 161 by peace officers and district attorneys, . . . except those provisions specifically delegated. . . . The legislative history clearly establishes the legislative intent to be a grant of concurrent authority, not a specific delegation that would remove police and prosecutors from the enforcement of ch. 161 or sec. 161.30. In 1968, the Governor's Commission on Law Enforcement and Crime recommended, following a study of the problem of the illegal use and trafficking in narcotics and dangerous drugs, that a state agency with supervisory statewide jurisdiction be established to deal with the problems involved in combating the drug menace. In response, ch. 141, Laws of 1969, authorized the department of justice to enforce the provisions of the laws relating to illicit activities in the field of narcotics and dangerous drugs. Sec. 8 of ch. 252, Laws of 1969, codified in detail the jurisdiction of the division of criminal investigation of the department of justice. Included in such grant of jurisdiction was the authority to enforce laws relating to narcotics and dangerous drugs. Sec. 8 of ch. 252 of the Laws of 1969, specifically provides: . . . Nothing herein shall deprive or relieve local peace officers of the power and duty to enforce those provisions enumerated in sub. (1). (Sec. 165.70 (2), Stats.) Such sub. (1) includes a specific reference to the Wisconsin statutes governing narcotics and dangerous drugs. Both intent and effect are clear. The delegation of enforcement authority to the department of justice clearly was not intended to remove local peace or law officers from the field of enforcement of laws against narcotics and dangerous drugs. The apparent purpose was to strengthen, not weaken, the efforts to enforce such laws. Concurrent jurisdiction was intended and established. The role of the Milwaukee law officers and district attorney in the present case was entirely proper.