Low bail a 'thing of value'.

Byline: David Ziemer

A defendant who misappropriates another's identity and uses it during an arrest and in subsequent bail proceedings to obtain lower bail does so, "to obtain credit, money, goods, services or anything else of value," within the meaning of the identity theft statute, sec. 943.201(2), the Wisconsin Supreme Court held on July 3.

On Sept. 30, 2001, Pamela Lynn Peters was arrested, and falsely identified herself to police as Patricia A. Panzer, her husband's ex-wife.

The State charged Peters, under the falsely assumed name of Patricia A. Panzer, with armed robbery and retail theft, and Peters made her initial appearance in Racine County Circuit Court on October 1, 2001.

During the initial appearance, Peters continued to falsely represent herself as Patricia Panzer. The State asked for a $20,000 cash bail. Using the falsely assumed identity, Peters' attorney argued that a $1,000 cash bail was appropriate, citing Panzer's stable address, lack of a criminal record, lack of any history of failed court appearances, and valid driver's license.

The court commissioner set bail at $10,000 cash and $10,000 signature bond. The next day, Racine County Circuit Court Judge Wayne J. Marik held an evidentiary hearing at the State's request and found that Peters was not actually Panzer.

The court amended the case caption to reflect Peters' true identity, and then revisited the issue of bail. Unlike Panzer, Peters had a record of criminal arrests including multiple counts of theft, resisting arrest, contributing to the delinquency of a child, possession of drug paraphernalia, possession of cocaine, and criminal damage to property. She also had eight outstanding warrants for her arrest. The court increased Peters' bail to $30,000 cash.

The State then amended the complaint to add a charge of obstructing an officer and identity theft. The identity theft statute makes it a crime to intentionally misappropriate another's identity "to obtain credit, money, goods, services or anything else of value" without the other's consent.

Peters moved to dismiss the identity theft count, and the court granted the motion, concluding that the phrase "anything else of value" is limited to "something that is in a category of credit, money, goods, services, or having those types of characteristics having measurable value and worth in a commercial sense in the marketplace," and holding that "[o]btaining a more favorable bond in a criminal case does not ... fall within that category."

The State appealed, and the court of appeals certified the case to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which accepted and reversed in a decision by Justice Diane...