Village of Muscoda v. Greg Douglas Griswold

COURT OF APPEALS
DECISION NOTICE
DATED AND FILED This opinion is subject to further editing. If
published, the official version will appear in
the bound volume of the Official Reports.
August 13, 2020
A party may file with the Supreme Court a
Sheila T. Reiff petition to review an adverse decision by the
Clerk of Court of Appeals Court of Appeals. See WIS. STAT. § 808.10
and RULE 809.62.

Appeal No. 2020AP166 Cir. Ct. No. 2019FO1154

STATE OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF APPEALS
DISTRICT IV

VILLAGE OF MUSCODA,

PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,

V.

GREG DOUGLAS GRISWOLD,

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

APPEAL from a judgment of the circuit court for Grant County:
CRAIG R. DAY, Judge. Reversed.

¶1 KLOPPENBURG, J.1 Greg Douglas Griswold appeals a circuit
court judgment finding him guilty of violating a Village of Muscoda ordinance
that provides: “No person may violate any rules or regulations that have been

1
This appeal is decided by one judge pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 752.31(2)(b) (2017-18).
All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2017-18 version unless otherwise noted.
No. 2020AP166

enacted by the Librarian or the Library Board.” Muscoda, Wisconsin, Municipal
Code § 12-1-10 (2020).2

¶2 The circuit court concluded that, on October 16, 2019, Griswold
violated the Village ordinance. The underlying rule that triggered the ordinance
citation is a Muscoda Public Library rule providing that “patrons must sign in to
use either of the two study rooms in the library.”3

¶3 Griswold argues on appeal that there is no evidence that he
disobeyed the sign-in rule in violation of the ordinance on October 16, 2019. I
agree that the record shows that Griswold did not actually enter or use either of the
two study rooms in the library on October 16, 2019. He therefore did not disobey
“any rules or regulations that have been enacted by the Librarian or the Library
Board” in violation of the ordinance. Muscoda, Wisconsin, Municipal Code § 12-
1-10 (2020). Accordingly, I reverse.

2
Village of Muscoda Ordinance 12-1-10 as currently posted on the Village’s website
provides, “No person may violate any rules or regulations that have been enacted by the Librarian
or the Library Board.” See Village of Muscoda Ordinance webpage,
https://www.muscoda.com/sites/muscoda.com/files/12-
1%20Parks%2C%20Pool%20%26%20Campground%207-1-20.pdf, last accessed 7/31/2020.
There is no indication in the record or the briefing that Village of Muscoda Ordinance 12-1-10
was different in any way that matters in October 2019.
3
This requirement is set forth in a document entitled “Muscoda Public Library Study
Room Policy.” The parties and the record refer to the specific sign-in requirement as either a
policy or a rule; neither party disputes that the sign-in requirement is enforceable under Village of
Muscoda Ordinance 12-1-10. For convenience, I will refer to it as the “sign-in rule.”

2
No. 2020AP166

BACKGROUND

¶4 On October 16, 2019, Griswold was issued a citation for violating
Village of Muscoda Ordinance 12-1-10. The case proceeded to a trial before the
circuit court.

¶5 The following pertinent uncontroverted evidence was presented at
trial.

¶6 The Muscoda Public Library librarian testified as follows. At its
October 2019 board meeting, the Muscoda Library Board adopted a new rule
requiring patrons to sign in to use either of the two study rooms. On a Monday
shortly after the new rule was adopted, Griswold came into the library and asked
to use one of the library study rooms. The librarian replied that per library policy,
Griswold must sign in to use the room. When she turned away from Griswold to
help other patrons, Griswold went into the study room without signing in.

¶7 Griswold returned to the library the following Wednesday, and
Griswold was reminded about the sign-in rule. Griswold said that he would not
sign in to use the study room and “indicated” that he was going to enter the room
without signing in; the librarian then contacted Muscoda Chief of Police William
Schramm. Griswold never entered a study room on that day.

¶8 Muscoda Chief of Police William Schramm testified as follows. The
Village of Muscoda adopted an ordinance indicating that violation of a library rule
constitutes a violation of the Village Municipal Code. The librarian called
Schramm to the library on Wednesday, October 16, 2019. Schramm encountered
Griswold at the library and discussed the sign-in rule with Griswold. Griswold
indicated that he did not think the rule was fair and “asked that the matter be taken

3
No. 2020AP166

before a Judge to have the rule tested in court.” Schramm replied that he would
have to issue Griswold a citation for that to occur. Griswold asked if he needed to
actually enter the study room in order to receive a citation. Schramm replied, “No,
I can just write that ticket based off of you saying you want to go in there.”
Schramm then issued the citation indicating that Griswold violated Village of
Muscoda Ordinance 12-1-10.

¶9 Griswold testified as follows. On Wednesday, October 16, 2019,
Griswold entered the library and was told he was required to sign in if he wanted
to use a study room, and Griswold said he did not want to sign in. When the
librarian asked if he intended to enter the study room, Griswold replied, “[W]ell
yeah, I certainly intended to make use of it if I could.” He later told the librarian:
“I intend to, [by] however means I can[,] challenge this policy.” Griswold asked
both the librarian and Schramm if he needed to set foot in the study room to
commit the violation before he was charged. Griswold did not enter the study
room. Griswold is “desperately” trying to bring about a change in the library’s
sign-in rule.

¶10 While Griswold was on the stand, the circuit court and Griswold
engaged in the following exchange:

THE COURT: … [Y]our whole point here is to
challenge this rule.

….

THE COURT: And if you’re saying you didn’t
violate the rule then your challenge [to the rule] must fail
… because there is no violation. What you, I think, you’re
wanting to say is yes, I violated the rule, but the rule isn’t
enforceable, or isn’t legal.

.…

4
No. 2020AP166

MR. GRISWOLD: … I’m saying I do not feel that
I violated the policy. I have respected that. And what
you’re telling me, and I hear you, is that this isn’t the forum
to bring my protest.

THE COURT: Well, it certainly isn’t your forum to
bring your protest to the whole general library issue --

….

THE COURT: The issue in this case is whether
requiring you to sign in to use the study room is a
legitimate municipal regulation. If you want me to find
that you didn’t violate it on this particular day, and if I do
find that you didn’t violate it on this particular day because
you didn’t go in. Well, then you’re never going to use the
study room without signing in because the rule will have
survived.

MR. GRISWOLD: Correct. I’m faced with that
and I have asked since I needed to bring a lawsuit to the
Village and board under the ADA to try and bring about
change. Because I don’t know of any other way to do it.

¶11 The circuit court acknowledged, and Griswold confirmed, that
Griswold had asked Schramm whether Griswold needed to go into the room and
that Schramm “basically said no, if you want a ticket, I’ll give you a ticket.”

¶12 On cross-examination, Griswold testified that he understood that he
would have to sign in if he wanted to use a study room, and that he did not have
the right to use a study room without signing in. He agreed that he would respect
the sign-in rule until the rule changed.

¶13 In post-trial briefing the Village argued in support of the
enforceability of the sign-in rule and asked that the circuit court find Griswold
guilty of violating it. Griswold contested the validity of the sign-in rule and
asserted that he had proven, and the court had found, that he was not guilty of
violating it.

5
No. 2020AP166

¶14 The circuit court entered a “Decision and Judgment” in which it
began by stating, “The relevant historical facts are undisputed. Mr. Griswold
objects to signing in in order to use a library study room. Mr. Griswold explicitly
invited this citation in order to test the validity of the library sign-in rule.” The
court found Griswold guilty of the violation “based upon the undisputed
evidence.” The court also addressed Griswold’s challenge to the sign-in rule and
concluded that the rule is valid and enforceable. Griswold appeals.

DISCUSSION

¶15 Griswold argues that the evidence is insufficient to support the
finding of guilt.4 When the sufficiency of evidence is challenged, an appellate
court sustains the circuit court’s findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous.
State v. Anderson, 2019 WI 97, ¶20, 389 Wis. 2d 106, 935 N.W.2d 285. A
finding of fact is clearly erroneous if it is “against the great weight and clear
preponderance of the evidence.” Id. (citation omitted).

¶16 Here, the circuit court concluded that Griswold was guilty of
violating the Village ordinance but did not make a specific finding of fact as to
whether Griswold entered the library’s study room without signing in, in violation
of the sign-in rule enforced by the ordinance. In cases where a circuit court fails
to make explicit findings of fact necessary to support its legal conclusion, the
appellate court assumes that the circuit court made such findings in a way that

4
Griswold also argues that the sign-in rule is unconstitutional. I do not address that
argument because my conclusion based on the sufficiency of the evidence is dispositive. See
Barrows v. American Family Ins. Co., 2014 WI App 11, ¶9, 352 Wis. 2d 436, 842 N.W.2d 508
(2013) (“An appellate court need not address every issue raised by the parties when one issue is
dispositive.”).

6
No. 2020AP166

supports its decision. State v. Weber, 2016 WI 96, ¶25 n.8, 372 Wis. 2d 202, 887
N.W.2d 554. Cf. State v. Echols, 175 Wis. 2d 653, 673, 499 N.W.2d 631 (1993);
Freund v. Nasonville Dairy, Inc., 2019 WI App 55, ¶39, 389 Wis. 2d 35, 934
N.W.2d 913.

¶17 I analyze Griswold’s sufficiency of the evidence argument by:
(1) determining what findings of fact are necessary to support the circuit court’s
conclusion of guilt; and (2) analyzing those necessary findings under the “clearly
erroneous” standard. Anderson, 2019 WI 97, ¶20.

¶18 As the circuit court implicitly acknowledged, a finding of fact that
Griswold violated a library rule is necessary to support the determination that he is
guilty of violating Village of Muscoda Ordinance § 12-1-10 (2020). The only
library rule mentioned in this case is the sign-in rule and Mr. Griswold is not
accused of violating any other library rules. Consistent with Weber and
subsequent case law, I assume that the circuit court made a finding of fact that
Griswold violated the sign-in rule because that finding is necessary to support the
court’s determination of guilt.

¶19 The issue here is whether the circuit court could reasonably have
inferred from the evidence that Griswold violated the sign-in rule. “If any
possibility exists that the trier of fact could have drawn the appropriate inferences
from the evidence adduced at trial to find the requisite guilt, an appellate court
may not overturn a verdict even if it believes that the trier of fact should not have
found guilt based on the evidence before it.” State v. Poellinger, 153 Wis. 2d 493,
507, 451 N.W.2d 752 (1990). If more than one reasonable inference can be
drawn, the appellate court must accept the inference drawn by the circuit court
sitting as fact finder; where only one reasonable inference can be drawn from the

7
No. 2020AP166

evidence, the drawing of that inference is a question of law. Freund v. Nasonville
Dairy, Inc., 2019 WI App 55, ¶41 (citing Welytok v. Ziolkowski, 2008 WI App
67, ¶¶26-27, 312 Wis. 2d 435, 752 N.W.2d 359).

¶20 Here, the requisite guilt requires a finding that Griswold violated the
sign-in rule, but that finding cannot be reasonably inferred from the evidence. As
the circuit court acknowledged, and as the Village concedes on appeal, Griswold
did not enter a study room on October 16, 2019. The testimony summarized
above confirms that there is no evidence that Griswold used a study room in
violation of the sign-in rule on October 16, 2019.5 Because Griswold did not use
the study room, he did not disobey the sign-in rule providing that “patrons must
sign in to use either of the two study rooms in the library.” Because he did not
disobey the sign-in rule or any other library rule, Griswold did not violate the
Village ordinance requiring obedience to “any rules or regulations that have been
enacted by the Librarian or the Library Board.” Muscoda, Wisconsin, Municipal
Code § 12-1-10 (2020). The court’s implicit finding to the contrary cannot be
reasonably inferred from the evidence and is, therefore, clearly erroneous.

¶21 The Village argues that, although there is no evidence that Griswold
violated the sign-in rule on October 16, 2019, he was properly found to have
violated the rule because he proceeded with his challenge to its validity and the
circuit court declared the rule valid. The Village cites no legal authority in support
of its argument, and I do not consider it further. See State v. Pettit, 171 Wis. 2d

5
Moreover, the uncontroverted evidence establishes that Griswold will not use a study
room without signing in so long as the sign-in rule remains in effect.

8
No. 2020AP166

627, 646, 492 N.W.2d 633 (Ct. App. 1992) (“Arguments unsupported by
references to legal authority will not be considered.”).

CONCLUSION

¶22 Because the record reveals no evidence that Griswold disobeyed the
sign-in rule in violation of the ordinance, I reverse.

By the Court.—Judgment reversed.

This opinion will not be published. See WIS. STAT.
RULE 809.23(1)(b)5.

9