1. Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. STATE v. Pamela L. PETERS Supreme Court of Wisconsin, 263 Wis.2d 475, 665 N.W.2d 171 (2003) Case Brief

2. Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. STATE v. PETERS PURPOSE: This case is a good introduction to the complexities of statutory interpretation.

3. Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. STATE v. PETERS CAUSE OF ACTION: A criminal prosecution of Wisconsin’s identity theft statute.

4. Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. STATE v. PETERS FACTS: Peters was arrested for shoplifting and misidentified herself as her ex- husband’s current wife. Because of her criminal record, she was able to secure more favorable bail terms by using another’s name. After her identity was discovered, Peters’ bail was raised from $10,000 to $30,000 and she was charged under Wisconsin’s identity theft statute.

5. Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. STATE v. PETERS ISSUE: Whether a defendant who misappropriates another's identity and uses it during an arrest and in subsequent bail proceedings to obtain lower bail has done so “to obtain credit, money, goods, services or anything else of value” within the meaning of the identity theft statute.

6. Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. STATE v. PETERS HOLDING: Yes, this was within the ‘plain meaning’ of Wisconsin’s identity theft statute.

7. Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. STATE v. PETERS REASONING: The court stated that it was applying the plain meaning rule. The court reviewed the definitions of “bail” and “monetary,” concluding that bail had a monetary value. Because bail has a monetary value, Peters had taken another’s identity to obtain money within the meaning of Wisconsin’s identity theft statute.