975.09 Periodic examination.

(1) The department shall make periodic examinations of all persons within its control under s. 975.06 for the purpose of determining whether existing orders and dispositions in individual cases should be modified or continued in force. These examinations may be made as frequently as the department considers desirable and shall be made with respect to every person at intervals not exceeding one year. The department shall keep written records of all examinations and of conclusions predicated thereon, and of all orders concerning the disposition or treatment of every person under its control. Failure of the department to examine a person committed to it or to make periodic examination does not entitle the person to a discharge from the control of the department, but does entitle the person to petition the committing court for an order of discharge, and the court shall discharge the person unless it appears in accordance with sub. (3) that there is necessity for further control.

(2) If the person petitions the court for discharge under sub. (1), the person may appear in court with counsel and compel the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence. The person may have a physician or clinical psychologist of the person's choosing examine the person and the medical records in the institution to which confined or at some suitable place designated by the department. If unable to provide counsel, the court shall appoint counsel to represent the person. Section 975.06 (1) governs the procedure of the hearing.

(3) If, after a hearing, it is found that discharge from the control of the department of the person to whom the order applies would be dangerous to the public because of the person's mental or physical deficiency, disorder or abnormality, the court shall dismiss the petition. If it is found that discharge from the control of the department would not be dangerous to the public for the causes stated, the court shall order that the person be discharged from the control of the department.

History: 1979 c. 117.

Minimum due process requirements for reexamination of a sex crimes commitment between the initial commitment and expiration of the maximum time are discussed. State ex rel. Terry v. Percy, 95 Wis. 2d 476, 290 N.W.2d 713 (1980).

At a hearing under sub. (3), the state's burden of proof is to establish the need for control by a preponderance of the evidence. State v. Hanson, 100 Wis. 2d 549, 302 N.W.2d 452 (1981).

Reexamination of sex crimes commitment is discussed. State v. Higginbotham, 110 Wis. 2d 393, 329 N.W.2d 250 (Ct. App. 1982).