City of Milwaukee v. Burnette
Wisconsin Court of Appeals
248 Wis. 2d 820, 637 N.W.2d 447 (2001)
- Written by Tammy Boggs, JD
Facts
In certain areas of Milwaukee, unlawful prostitution and acts of solicitation for the purpose of prostitution (together, prostitution-related activity) occurred frequently. The residents and businesses in the areas were harmed by the prostitution-related activity and complained to law enforcement. It was difficult, however, for law-enforcement officers to identify and convict the prostitutes, of which there were over 100. Undercover officers faced significant hazards in attempting to gather evidence of prostitution. Michelle Burnette and four other women (the women) (defendants) were prostitutes in the relevant areas of Milwaukee. The City of Milwaukee (plaintiff) sought and obtained an injunction against the women to enjoin a public nuisance; the women were prohibited from engaging in prostitution-related activity as specified. The injunction included a provision prohibiting the women from “engaging in, beckoning to stop, or engaging male or female passersby in conversation, or stopping or attempting to stop motor vehicle operators by hailing, waving of arms or any other bodily gesture.” Another provision prohibited “appearing in public view within 25” feet of any other person subject to the injunction (the 25-foot restriction). The women appealed, challenging the propriety of an injunction against prostitution-related activity and the constitutionality of the injunction.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Fine, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.