Wis. Stat. § 823.11
In actions begun under s. 823.10 the existence of any nuisance defined by s. 823.09 shall constitute prima facie evidence that the owner of the premises affected has permitted the same to be used as a nuisance; and evidence of the general reputation of the place shall be admissible to prove the existence of such nuisance. If the complaint is filed by a citizen, it shall not be dismissed, except upon a sworn statement made by the complainant and the complainant's attorney, setting forth the reasons why the action should be dismissed, and the dismissal shall be approved by the district attorney of the county in writing or in open court. If the court is of the opinion that the action ought not to be dismissed it may direct the district attorney of the county to prosecute said action to judgment. If the action is brought by a citizen, and the court finds that there was no reasonable ground or cause for said action the costs shall be taxed to such citizen.
Wis. Stat. § 823.11
Read in conjunction with s. 823.11, ss. 823.09 and 823.10 do not violate due process because they provide the opportunity to challenge prima facie evidence that a defendant knowingly permitted prostitution to occur on his property, and also allow the collateral challenge of the underlying prostitution convictions. The statutes also do not violate constitutional rights to freedom of association, the protection against government establishment of religion, and equal protection. State v. Schultz, 218 Wis. 2d 798, 582 N.W.2d 113 (Ct. App. 1998), 97-3414.