(1) TYPE OF ACTION; WHERE BROUGHT. In an action brought to cause the forfeiture of any property seized under s. 961.55, the court may render a judgment in rem or against a party personally, or both. The circuit court for the county in which the property was seized shall have jurisdiction over any proceedings regarding the property when the action is commenced in state court. Subject to s. 961.55(1r), any property seized may be the subject of a federal forfeiture action.(2) COMMENCEMENT. (a) The district attorney of the county within which the property was seized shall commence the forfeiture action within 30 days after the seizure of the property, and the forfeiture proceedings shall be adjourned until after the defendant is convicted of any charge concerning a crime which was the basis for the seizure of the property. If property is seized, a charge shall be issued within 6 months after the seizure, except that an unlimited number of 6-month extensions may be granted if, for each extension, a judge determines probable cause is shown and the additional time is warranted. If no charge is issued within 6 months after the seizure, or a 6-month extension is not granted, the seized property shall be returned to the owner. The forfeiture action shall be commenced by filing a summons, complaint and affidavit of the person who seized the property with the clerk of circuit court, provided service of authenticated copies of those papers is made in accordance with ch. 801 within 90 days after filing upon the person from whom the property was seized and upon any person known to have a bona fide perfected security interest in the property.(am) Upon motion by the prosecuting attorney, the court may waive the conviction requirement under par. (a) if the prosecuting attorney shows by clear and convincing evidence that any of the following applies:1. The defendant has died.2. The defendant was deported by the U.S. government.3. The defendant has been granted immunity in exchange for testifying or otherwise assisting a law enforcement investigation or prosecution.4. The defendant fled the jurisdiction.5. The property has been unclaimed for a period of at least 9 months.6. The property is contraband that is subject to forfeiture under s. 961.55(6), (6m), or (7).(b) Upon service of an answer, the action shall be set for hearing within 60 days of the service of the answer but may be continued for cause or upon stipulation of the parties.(c) In counties having a population of 750,000 or more, the district attorney or corporation counsel may proceed under par. (a).(d) If no answer is served or no issue of law or fact has been joined and the time for that service or joining issue has expired, or if any defendant fails to appear at trial after answering or joining issue, the court may render a default judgment as provided in s. 806.02.(2m) CRIMINAL FORFEITURES. (a) In addition to any penalties under this chapter, the court shall, with due provision for the rights of innocent persons in accordance with sub. (5), order forfeiture of any property specified in s. 961.55(1) in accordance with pars. (b), (c), and (d).(b) A criminal complaint must allege the extent of property subject to forfeiture under this subsection. At trial, the court or the jury shall return a special verdict determining the extent of property, if any, that is subject to forfeiture under this subsection. When a special verdict contains a finding of property subject to a forfeiture under this subsection, a judgment of criminal forfeiture shall be entered along with the judgment of conviction under s. 972.13.(c) An injured person has a right or claim to forfeited property or the proceeds derived from forfeited property under this subsection that is superior to any right or claim the state has in the property or proceeds. This paragraph does not grant the injured person priority over state claims or rights by reason of a tax lien or other basis not covered by this section or by s. 961.55 or 961.56. All rights, titles, and interest in property specified in s. 961.55(1) vest in the state upon the commission of the act giving rise to forfeiture under this subsection.(d) An injured or innocent person may petition the court for relief from the judgment of criminal forfeiture entered under par. (b) within 30 days after it is entered. The person filing the petition has the burden of satisfying or convincing to a reasonable certainty by the greater weight of the evidence that the person has a bona fide perfected security interest in the property subject to forfeiture in s. 961.55(1) or any other property subject to forfeiture in sub. (4). The court may order that a person with a bona fide perfected security interest be paid from the proceeds of the forfeiture or any other equitable relief necessary so as to do substantial justice to the person.(3) BURDEN OF PROOF. The state shall have the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the property is subject to forfeiture under s. 961.55.(3g) PRIVILEGES. The defendant or convicted offender may invoke the right against self-incrimination or the marital privilege during the forfeiture-related stage of the prosecution. The trier of fact at the hearing may draw an adverse inference from the invocation of the right or privilege.(3m) PROPORTIONALITY. (a) The court may not order the forfeiture of property if the court finds that the forfeiture is grossly disproportional to the crime for which the person whose property was seized was convicted or that the forfeiture is unconstitutionally excessive under the state or federal constitution.(b) A person who is alleging that the forfeiture is grossly disproportional or is unconstitutionally excessive under this subsection shall have the burden of satisfying or convincing to a reasonable certainty by the greater weight of the credible evidence that the forfeiture is grossly disproportional or unconstitutionally excessive.(c) In determining whether the forfeiture is grossly disproportional or unconstitutionally excessive, the court shall consider the following: 1. The seriousness of the offense.2. The purpose of the statute authorizing the forfeiture.3. The maximum fine for the offense.4. The harm that actually resulted from the defendant's conduct.(d) In determining whether the forfeiture is grossly disproportional or unconstitutionally excessive, the court may not consider the value of the property to the state.(4) ACTION AGAINST OTHER PROPERTY OF THE PERSON. The court may order the forfeiture of any other property of a defendant up to the value of property found by the court to be subject to forfeiture under s. 961.55 if the property subject to forfeiture meets any of the following conditions: (b) Has been transferred or conveyed to, sold to or deposited with a 3rd party.(c) Is beyond the jurisdiction of the court.(d) Has been substantially diminished in value while not in the actual physical custody of the law enforcement agency.(e) Has been commingled with other property that cannot be divided without difficulty.(5) INNOCENT OWNERS. (a) Notwithstanding sub. (2) (a), a person who claims to have an ownership interest in property subject to forfeiture as an innocent owner may petition the court for the return of his or her seized property at any time.(b) A person who has an ownership interest in property subject to forfeiture that exists at the occurrence of the illegal conduct giving rise to the forfeiture and who claims to be an innocent owner has the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that he or she has a legal right, title, or interest in the property seized under this chapter.(c) If the requisite showing under par. (b) has been made, in order to proceed with a forfeiture action against the property, the state has the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the person had actual or constructive knowledge of the underlying crime giving rise to the forfeiture.(d) A person who has an ownership interest in property subject to forfeiture that he or she acquired after the occurrence of the conduct giving rise to the forfeiture and who claims to be an innocent owner has the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that he or she has a legal right, title, or interest in the property seized under this chapter.(e) If the requisite showing under par. (d) has been made, in order to proceed with a forfeiture action against the property, the state has the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the person had actual or constructive knowledge that the property was subject to forfeiture or that the person was not a bona fide purchaser without notice of any defect in title and for valuable consideration.(f) If the state does not meet the burden under par. (c) or (e) as to any property, the court shall find that the property is the property of an innocent owner and not subject to forfeiture under this chapter and shall order the state to relinquish all claims of title to the property.(6) RETURN OF PROPERTY. The court shall order the return of any property subject to forfeiture under ss. 961.55 to 961.56 within 30 days of acquittal or dismissal of charges for the offense which was the basis of the forfeiture action, or 6 months after a seizure which was the basis of the forfeiture action if no charges have been issued and no extension has been granted. If the property is co-owned by 2 or more defendants in a criminal action, and one or more defendant co-owners are acquitted or the charges against him or her are dismissed, the court shall have discretion to dispose of the co-owned property in accordance with the proportionality guidelines in sub. (3m) as he or she deems appropriate.(7) ATTORNEY FEES. A person who prevails in an action to return property subject to forfeiture under ss. 961.55 to 961.56 may be awarded reasonable attorney fees by the state if the court finds that the forfeiting agency or prosecuting attorney has arbitrarily and capriciously pursued the forfeiture action.Amended by Acts 2018 ch, 211,s 29, eff. 4/5/2018.Amended by Acts 2018 ch, 211,s 28, eff. 4/5/2018.Amended by Acts 2018 ch, 211,s 27, eff. 4/5/2018.Amended by Acts 2018 ch, 211,s 26, eff. 4/5/2018.Amended by Acts 2018 ch, 211,s 25, eff. 4/5/2018.Amended by Acts 2018 ch, 211,s 24, eff. 4/5/2018.Amended by Acts 2018 ch, 211,s 23, eff. 4/5/2018.Amended by Acts 2018 ch, 211,s 22, eff. 4/5/2018.Amended by Acts 2018 ch, 211,s 21, eff. 4/5/2018.Amended by Acts 2018 ch, 211,s 20, eff. 4/5/2018.Amended by Acts 2018 ch, 207,s 5, eff. 4/5/2018.1971 c. 219; Sup. Ct. Order, 67 Wis. 2d 585, 752 (1975); 1981 c. 113, 267; Sup. Ct. Order, 120 Wis. 2d xiii; 1985 a. 245; 1989 a. 121; 1993 a. 321; 1995 a. 448 s. 306; Stats. 1995 s. 961.555; 1997 a. 187. The time provisions of sub. (2) are mandatory and jurisdictional. State v. Rosen, 72 Wis. 2d 200, 240 N.W.2d 168 (1976). Persons served under sub. (2) (a) must be named as defendants. An action cannot be brought against an inanimate object as a sole "defendant." State v. One 1973 Cadillac, 95 Wis. 2d 641, 291 N.W.2d 626 (Ct. App. 1980). An affidavit under sub. (2) (a) must be executed by a person who was present at the seizure or who ordered the seizure and received reports from those present at the seizure. State v. Hooper, 122 Wis. 2d 748, 364 N.W.2d 175 (Ct. App. 1985). Sub. (2) (b) requires a hearing be held, not set, within 60 days of the service of the answer and allows a continuance only when it is applied for within the 60 day period. State v. Baye, 191 Wis. 2d 334, 528 N.W.2d 81 (Ct. App. 1995). The 60-day limit in sub. (2) (b) is mandatory and a forfeiture petition must be dismissed with prejudice unless the requisite hearing is held within the 60-day period. Once the 60-day period has expired, the circuit court loses competency, and the state may not start the clock running anew by filing another forfeiture petition based on the same facts. State v. One 2000 Lincoln Navigator, its Tools and Appurtenances, 2007 WI App 127, 301 Wis. 2d 714, 731 N.W.2d 375, 06-2016. Authentication of a summons and complaint is accomplished by the clerk's placing a filing stamp indicating the case number on each copy of the summons and complaint and for purposes of sub. (2) (a), a forfeiture affidavit is authenticated the same way. Failure to comply with the authentication of the forfeiture summons, complaint, and affidavit can constitute fundamental error. But when, as in this case, the state presents all three items, stapled together as one document, to the clerk for authentication, and the clerk errs in failing to separately authenticate the affidavit, the defect is technical, not fundamental, and will only deprive the court of jurisdiction if prejudice is shown. State v. Schmitt, 2012 WI App 121, 344 Wis. 2d 587, 824 N.W.2d 899, 11-1949.