Court Opinion

ID: 9668357
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 02:10:24.476153+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:44.853344
License: Public Domain

DYKMAN, J.
(concurring). When one court of appeals district overrules a case written by another district, it is better policy, and is less confusing to do so directly rather than by implication.1 Here, the majority overrules Milwaukee v. Dyson, 141 Wis. 2d 108, 413, N.W.2d 660 (Ct. App. 1987) by distinguishing that case on a point not relevant to the Dyson opinion. Dyson’s reasoning is ignored. Instead, a different analysis, inconsistent with Dyson’s analysis, is adopted. Dyson is therefore effectively but only implicitly overruled. I would do so directly.
In Dyson, 141 Wis. 2d at 112, 413 N.W.2d at 662, we said:
Under sec. 968.20(1), Stats., “[i]f the right to possession [of property seized pursuant to a search warrant] is proved to the court’s satisfaction, it shall order the property ... returned.” There is nothing in the statute which requires the property to be returned to the person who was the legal owner, or on whose property the weapons were found, at the time it was confiscated. In this case, the trial court properly determined the right to possession, as evidenced by the court’s requirement that a purchase agreement transferring ownership of the weap*860ons be executed prior to the entry of its order, before ordering that the property be returned. (Emphasis added.)
Dyson’s guns were on his property when they were seized by the police. The trial court did not determine whether Dyson’s guns were involved in the commission of a crime, and our opinion does not consider this point. After Dyson’s conviction, he gave his guns to his son. The trial court upheld that transfer and we affirmed because we concluded that the purchase agreement gave a right of possession of the guns to Dyson’s son. This reasoning is not dependent upon whether Dyson used the guns in the commission of a crime.
• After he was convicted, Willie Williams gave his gun to Otis Harris. The majority declines to follow Dyson because Williams used the gun in the commission of a crime and Dyson’s guns were not involved in the commission of a crime. Even if we knew whether Dyson’s guns were used in the commission of a crime, that hardly distinguishes a case decided because we concluded that guns could be validly transferred from one not permitted to possess them to one who could legally do so, notwithstanding sec. 968.20, Stats.
We do not know whether Dyson committed a crime involving the use of the guns. Had we considered that factor dispositive, our opinion would have at least mentioned it. The only conclusion to draw from Dyson is that we considered it irrelevant whether the guns were involved in the commission of a crime.
The only question in this case is whether Otis Harris is the rightful owner of the gun. We held in Dyson that an assignee is entitled to possession of guns seized by the police. The majority suggests that the statutory language “[t]he property may be returned to the rightful owner” really means “[t]he property may be *861returned to the person who owned the firearm at the time of the commission of the crime.” Of course, the statute does not read that way. Had we concluded in Dyson that sec. 968.20(lm), Stats., reads as the majority now holds, we would have remanded to permit the circuit court to determine whether Dyson’s guns were used in the commission of a crime.
Though I think that the majority errs by interpreting secs. 968.20(1) and (lm), Stats., in a manner inconsistent with Dyson, I conclude that we should overrule Dyson directly. Sections 968.20(1) and (lm) require an initial inquiry into whether seized firearms or ammunition were involved in the commission of a crime. “Involved” is a broad term. A firearm may be involved in the commission of some crimes by its mere presence. If a firearm is involved in the commission of a crime, it becomes the property of the State Crime Laboratories, unless the owner of the firearm did not have prior knowledge of the crime or consent to it. Secs. 968.20(lm) and (3)(b). “Owner” can only refer to the owner at the time the crime is committed. Because it is undisputed that Williams used his gun to commit a crime, I would affirm the trial court’s order.

 We followed the direct-overrule method in State v. Marty, 137 Wis. 2d 352, 363 n. 1, 404 N.W.2d 120, 125 (Ct. App. 1987).