WJI Executive Director Margo Kirchner chats with Meagan Winn, director of Milwaukee County's Eviction Diversion Initiative. The Eviction Diversion Initiative is a new program providing tenants and landlords with information and resources to resolve housing issues both inside and outside of court. Avoiding eviction litigation can be important for tenants, as an eviction judgment from (or even the filing of) an eviction lawsuit can make it difficult for tenants to find future housing. The initiative connects tenants and landlords with resources such as rental assistance, housing counseling, legal assistance, and mediation. Funded by a grant from the National Center for State Courts, the program includes data collection and development of user-friendly court rules and procedures. Milwaukee County was one of the first cohort of states and municipalities selected by the National Center for State Courts for funding to pilot eviction-diversion strategies.
0 Comments
By Gretchen Schuldt Senate Bill 125/Assembly Bill 119 – Teaching police interaction etiquette the way police want it Law enforcement would help develop a model school curriculum on how students should properly interact with law enforcement, which school districts then would be required to teach unless they specifically opted out, under a bill introduced by Republicans. The bill would require the Department of Public Instruction, in consultation with law enforcement, to "promulgate rules to develop a model curriculum for pupils in grades 5 to 12 to instruct pupils on how to interact with law enforcement with mutual cooperation and respect." The bill does not provide funding to school districts to cover the costs of developing the curriculum. It does require that the lessons include the role and responsibilities of law enforcement officials in providing for public safety, the responsibilities of an individual to comply with directives from law enforcement officials, and the legal rights of an individual in interactions with law enforcement officials. It also would require school boards and charter school operators to teach the curriculum in at least two grades in fifth through eighth grades and two grades from ninth through 12th grades. School districts and charter schools could opt out. A charter school governing body could elect not to include the language in its operating contract. School boards would be required to adopt a resolution specifically opting out of the curriculum. Legislative sponsors of this bill are listed in the table at the end of this post. Senate Bill 169/Assembly Bill 180 – Employment hotline This bill would require the Department of Workforce Development to establish and staff a hotline to assist employers who want to hire people with criminal records, according to notes attached to the bill that were provided by the Joint Legislative Council. DWD would provide information and assistance relating to available incentives and programs for hiring people with records, including those on certain work-release programs. The bill was introduced by the Legislative Council on behalf of its Study Committee on Increasing Offender Employment. Senate Bill 170/Assembly Bill 181 – Earned release expansion More incarcerated people could be eligible for the earned release program under this bill. It would make eligible some inmates who complete an employment readiness training program, defined as an "education, job training, employment, or other equivalent evidence-based program intended to lead to employment and reduce recidivism." Under the earned release program, incarcerated people can serve larger portions of their sentences under community supervision, instead of remaining incarcerated. The law now limits eligibility to incarcerated people who complete a substance abuse program. There are, unsurprisingly, many conditions attached to the proposal. To qualify, a person's conviction cannot be for a violent crime and an individual cannot be released from incarceration before serving at least two-thirds of the prison portion of a bifurcated sentence. Like the substance abuse earned release program, the employment readiness version would require the sentencing court to find the individual qualified for the program. The earned release training program, however, would allow inmates, with DOC's approval, to later petition the court for eligibility. The bill was introduced by the Legislative Council on behalf of its Study Committee on Increasing Offender Employment. Senate Bill 171/Assembly Bill 182 – Housing help for the formerly incarcerated Landlords would gain a degree of immunity from lawsuits and would be eligible for state funding of repairs for damage caused by recently released inmates who hold a certificate of rental readiness issued by the Department of Corrections, under this bill. DOC would be required to include rental readiness training in its prelease programming. The bill authorizes the Wisconsin Housing and Economic Development Authority to run a bond program to fund repairs for damage to rental property caused by a certificate holder. Coverage would be limited to a single lease period, not to exceed one year, and only during the first two years after a person's release. Landlords who lease to certificate holders would be immune from civil liability (lawsuits) "for the death of or injury to any individual or any damages caused by intentional acts or omissions of the tenant who holds the certification of rental readiness," according to the proposed bill. The bill was introduced by the Legislative Council on behalf of its Study Committee on Increasing Offender Employment. Senate Bill 172/Assembly Bill 183 – Community reentry centers The Department of Corrections would be required to contract with at least one nonprofit organization to establish a community reentry center for people reentering the community from prison, according to the bill. The center or centers would provide assistance and services as listed below, according to the bill. 1. Health: assistance in identifying and accessing appropriate health care services and mental health services based on the individual's needs. 2. Identification: assistance in obtaining identification documents such as the individual's birth certificate, social security card, state identification card, or driver's license, if eligible, including any necessary forms and instructions. 3. Financial: assistance in creating a bank account, including obtaining a debit card at the time of the individual's initial contact with the community reentry center. 4. Housing: assistance in obtaining access to emergency housing options for homeless individuals and contacting landlords that rent to formerly incarcerated individuals. 5. Employment: assistance in creating a resume, electronically submitting the resume where needed, and contacting relevant employment agencies to secure employment. 6. Education: assistance in identifying whether and how to proceed with the next level of education or vocational training the individual may want or need. 7. Supervision: a secured office space for department supervision agents to meet with individuals on community supervision. The bill does not fund any centers. The bill was introduced by the Legislative Council on behalf of its Study Committee on Increasing Offender Employment. Senate Bill 191/Assembly Bill 202 – Occupational licenses and criminal records The state agency that helps determine whether individuals are qualified for occupational licenses would be allowed to overlook certain arrests and convictions when investigating whether a person's criminal record is substantially related to the work covered by the requested credentials. The Department of Safety and Professional Services is allowed to refuse or revoke credentials if a person's crimes are substantially related to the licensed activity covered by the license. Under the bill, DSPS, while investigating, could overlook:
The bill was introduced by the Legislative Council on behalf of its Study Committee on Occupational Licenses. Senate Bill 230/Assembly Bill 237 – Psych evaluation: Another pre-release requirement This bill requires incarcerated people to undergo a psychological evaluation before being released on parole or discretionary extended supervision. The authority considering whether to grant the release would be required to consider the report in its deliberations. The bill also would require the Department of Corrections to send notice to victims at least 30 days before an incarcerated person's release on parole and supervision. It specifies that victims are allowed to make oral statements and use visual aids at court hearings related to a person's eligibility for parole or discretionary extended supervision. The bill grants law enforcement the power to notify the public of an individual's release into the community if the sheriff or police chief believes that is necessary to protect the safety of the public. Legislative sponsors of this bill are listed in the table below. Bill sponsorsBy Gretchen Schuldt The Court of Appeals this week reversed a judge's decision in a case in which the state and the defense, in a relatively rare occurrence, agreed that the judge messed up. Winnebago Circuit Judge Daniel J. Bissett denied Peter John Long's motion to reopen a case after Long argued that his lawyer told him that the default judgment he accepted for refusing to take sobriety tests would result in a three-year suspension of his driver's license. Instead, it resulted in a lifetime license revocation. "The state believes Long is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his motion because he pled sufficient facts which, if true, entitle him to relief," District II Court of Appeals Judge Shelley A. Grogan wrote in her decision. "This court agrees and reverses and remands for an evidentiary hearing." Long was arrested for Operating While Intoxicated – 10th offense after police saw his motorcycle on a curb and found Long sleeping in a ditch about 300 yards away. Long refused to perform field sobriety tests or take a chemical test, according to the decision. The OWI case against Long was dismissed after a preliminary hearing because a court commissioner found that the state did not provide sufficient evidence to establish probable cause, Grogan wrote. The case against him for refusing the tests, however, went on. "According to Long’s motion, his attorney advised him that he could simply ‘default’ (not show up) and that the only consequence would be a three-year revocation of his driver’s license," Grogan wrote. The Department of Transportation, however, notified Long after the default judgment was entered that his license would be revoked permanently. Long, representing himself, sought to reopen the judgment, writing that his acceptance of the default was “due to incorrect advice and mistake by paid counsel.” Bissett refused the request, saying there was "no basis stated" to reopen the case. Long tried again, filing another motion with greater detail. Bissett again denied it, this time by stamping it "denied." Long filed for reconsideration; Bissett denied that request without explanation. "Long alleged facts that, if true, warrant relief, and therefore the circuit court should have held a hearing on his motion," Grogan wrote. The state, in its appellate brief, agreed. Lifetime driver's license revocation was a collateral consequence of a refusal finding, Winnebago County Assistant District Attorney Adam J. Levin wrote. When a defendant is misadvised of even collateral consequences of a conviction, "Wisconsin courts have permitted defendants to withdraw pleas that were based on a misunderstanding of the consequences," he said. Besides alleging that his lawyer provided incorrect information about the consequences of refusing the tests, Long argued that that the underlying OWI was dismissed for lack of probable cause, Grogan said. "He believes that as a result, he has a meritorious defense to the refusal citation," she wrote. "Based on these facts, Long is entitled to a hearing on his motion." By Gretchen Schuldt
A bill to reform the state's restrictive expungement law is supported by a broad range of groups, from the conservative Americans for Prosperity to the progressive ACLU. Versions of the bill, Senate Bill 38/Assembly Bill 37 have been introduced but died in past sessions. They all would allow more people to have their criminal records expunged. "The expungement laws as currently written are outdated and actually increase likelihood of recidivism and family separation by unnecessarily complicating the opportunity of expungement for nonviolent offenders," AFP-Wisconsin Supervisor of Grassroots Operations Jamiroquan Kittler said in testimony to the Senate's Judiciary and Public Safety Committee. "Criminal records live on well after a person has done their time, functioning as a penalty that follows people forever as they navigate a world in which meaningful opportunities for growth and self-improvement are closed off to them," the ACLU said. Under current law, a record can be expunged if the maximum potential prison sentence is six years or less, the crime involved was not a violent felony, the person committing the crime was under 25 years old, and the person had never been previously convicted of any felony. In addition, expungement must be requested when a person is sentenced, meaning the judge is expected to decide whether the person is eligible for expunction before there is a track record of the person's post-conviction behavior. If the judge does not state at the time of sentencing that expungement will be allowed, the person cannot apply for it later. Under the new bill, the age restriction would be lifted. Certain other restrictions would remain, including those related to past felonies, violent felonies, and the six-year maximum prison sentence. The law, if passed, would also make some offenses ineligible for expungement, including traffic crimes, violating a domestic abuse injunction or restraining order, criminal trespass, and criminal damage to a business. Eligibility for expungement still could be granted or denied by the judge at sentencing, but if the court does not grant eligibility, the person could petition for expungement after completing the imposed sentence. If the petition is denied, the person would not be eligible to file another petition for two years and then must pay the county $100. A person would be limited to a maximum of two petitions per crime. Only one expungement per person would be allowed. The bill would be retroactive to include those convicted of crimes before its adoption. "For those who say this bill is 'soft on crime,' I challenge that," State Sen. Rachael Cabral-Guevara (R-Appleton) said in testimony. Cabral-Guevara is the lead Senate sponsor of the bill. "This bill is about providing a second chance to those who have already paid their debt to society. These are people who now actively contribute to their communities. This is not a hand-out, it is a hand-up." And State Rep. David Steffen (R-Green Bay), the Assembly author, said the "support for reforming Wisconsin’s outdated expungement law has only continued to grow as employers grapple with growing workforce needs." The Badger Institute said the state's expungement law "forces judges to make poor decisions with limited information, encourages uneven and often nonsensical administration of justice, and does little to help employers, victims, or low-level, non-violent offenders we should all want in jobs rather than cells." The bill includes procedures that are the product of input from a variety of stakeholders, said State Rep. Evan Goyke (D-Milwaukee). "The process balances pressures on caseloads with the individual rights of victims and defendants. The result is a process that ensures victim input through the district attorney’s office, while judges retain discretion to be the ultimate decision makers," he said. Registering in favor of the bill were AFP, the ACLU, the Badger Institute, the Apartment Association of Southeastern Wisconsin, the Badger State Sheriffs' Association, the City of Milwaukee, Dane County, the League of Women Voters of Wisconsin, Milwaukee County, the Milwaukee Police Association, NAIOP Wisconsin (a commercial real estate group), National Association of Independent Business, the Outagamie County Board, the State Bar of Wisconsin, United Migrant Opportunity Services, the Waukesha County Business Alliance, the Wisconsin Catholic Conference, the Wisconsin Chiefs of Police Association, the Wisconsin Counties Association, the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, the Wisconsin Economic Development Association, Wisconsin Independent Businesses, Wisconsin Professional Police Association, and the Wisconsin Restaurant Association. No organization has registered in opposition to the bill, which is pending in both the Senate and Assembly. The U.S. Department of Justice recently expressed concern about the unjust imposition of fines and fees by state and local courts in violation of the civil rights of those accused of crime, quasi-criminal ordinance violations, and civil infractions.
The DOJ stated that the imposition and enforcement of fines and fees on those who cannot afford them may cause escalating debt that “far too often traps individuals and their families in a cycle of poverty and punishment that can be nearly impossible to escape.” The agency pointed to other “profound harm” that fines and fees may cause to those who cannot afford them: incarceration for nonpayment; extension of probation and parole; and loss of a driver’s license, employment, right to vote, or even a home. These negative effects often apply disproportionately to people of color and low-income communities, said the agency. The agency also reminded judges and stakeholders to provide meaningful court access for those with limited English proficiency. The DOJ discussed its concerns about fines and fees in a “Dear Colleague” letter issued April 20 to state and local judges and other justice-system stakeholders. The DOJ reminded judges of several constitutional principles relating to fines and fees, including:
The agency recommended assessment of each individual before imposition of monetary penalties, as “fines and fees will affect individuals differently depending on their resources.” Imposing fines and fees on youth is especially concerning and may be excessive and unreasonable, the DOJ said. Many minors “are too young to legally work, are of compulsory school age or full-time students, have great difficulty obtaining employment due to having a juvenile or criminal record, or simply do not yet have employable skills typically expected of adults.” Judges should presume that youth are unable to pay fines and fees, the DOJ said. The DOJ urged judges and other justice-system stakeholders not to use fines and fees as a means to raise government revenue, divorced from the purpose of punishment. The DOJ pointed to Supreme Court case law indicating that courts “have an affirmative duty to determine an individual’s ability to pay and whether any nonpayment was willful before imposing incarceration as a consequence,” even when a defendant does not raise the issue. State and municipal courts must consider alternatives to incarceration for nonpayment, and should consider alternatives to other serious consequences such as drivers’ license suspensions as well, the DOJ said. As alternatives, the DOJ suggested penalty-free payment plans and amnesty periods during which warrants are canceled or fees waived. The DOJ also suggested alternatives to fines and fees as sentences in the first place. Attendance at a traffic safety class or community service could replace the fines and fees, the DOJ said. The agency recommended that courts and other justice-system officials assess whether their penalties for nonpayment of fines and fees disproportionately affect certain groups. The agency pointed in particular to the suspension of drivers’ licenses for failure to pay, which may disproportionately affect people of color. The DOJ discussed statutory requirements for courts that receive federal funding to provide language assistance for limited English proficient (LEP) individuals regarding imposition and collection of fines and fees. “Such assistance includes, but is not limited to, ensuring that court users with LEP have competent interpreting and translation services during all related hearings, trials, and motions, provided at no cost,” the DOJ wrote. The agency said its Office for Access to Justice would follow up with a guide including best-practice examples from states and municipalities, and its Office of Justice Programs would seek a provider for training assistance for jurisdictions wishing to examine their fines and fees policies and practices. The DOJ defined “fines” as monetary punishments for infractions and “fees” as required payments that go toward activities unrelated to the conviction or punishment. |
Donate
Help WJI advocate for justice in Wisconsin
|