By Gretchen Schuldt

​Milwaukee police officials during budget hearings attributed the decline in city traffic citations this year to the city's settlement in the ACLU's stop-and-frisk lawsuit.

Dangerous driving has become a major issue in Milwaukee, outraging many residents.

While attributing the decline in citations to the ACLU, however, police failed to note that the number of tickets issued in the city has been declining for years except for significant jumps in 2017 and 2018 – the year the ACLU's lawsuit was filed and the year it was settled. 

"It's part of the ACLU lawsuit," Police Chief Alfonso Morales told the Common Council's Finance and Personnel Committee, referring to the decline in speeding tickets.

"We’re not doing the flooded  over-policing area where we’re measured on our activity on traffic and subject stops that resulted in citations," he said.

The ACLU of Wisconsin, along with the American Civil Liberties Union and the Covington & Burling law firm, brought a class action lawsuit on behalf of African-American and Latinx residents who challenged the constitutionality of MPD's traffic and pedestrian stops and alleged they were racially biased. The city denied wrongdoing, but agreed to several reforms to settle the suit.

Morales, at the committee meeting, acknowledged that police previously stopped and cited people for reasons other than the violations they committed.

Police now are "actually pulling the person over that actually is speeding or doing something reckless.... So those are the people that are getting the tickets – We’re not just – again, that whole Center Street corridor, where we’re stopping a minivan because, a Dodge Carava(n) – a mini-van because it’s high steal, and we’re stopping every Dodge Caravan and giving them a ticket....Those are all things that came across in the agreement with the ACLU lawsuit." 

Molly Collins, advocacy director of the ACLU of Wisconsin, said Wednesday that "there's nothing in the settlement that stops police from enforcing the law."

The lawsuit, she said, was "not about them enforcing the law, but about them breaking the law."

By Gretchen Schuldt

State Sen. Kathleen Bernier (R-Chippewa Falls) is a sponsor of the ill-conceived Marsy's Law amendment to the State Constitution that would give victims the right to attend every court proceeding in their case. 

Allowing anyone interested to attend court proceedings is a good thing. Elevating such access to the level of a constitutional right can create logistical nightmares for court officials and create long delays in cases. (Visit our Marsy's Flaws page to learn more.)


​WJI's questions for Bernier are about former Eau Claire County Treasurer Larry Lokken and his assistant, Kay Onarheim, who embezzled more than $600,000 from the county. The theft enraged county residents. Bernier represents part of the county.

Marsy's Law defines "victim" generally as "a person against whom an act is committed that would constitute a crime if committed by a competent adult." 

Stealing public funds is clearly stealing from the folks who pay into the treasury. 

WJI wrote to Bernier to ask a few questions about how, under Marsy's Law, Eau Claire County Circuit Court officials would manage likely demand from people to attend Lokken/Onarheimcourt proceedings. 

A few details about Eau Claire County: its population is 104,534, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, and most of those people pay some sort of tax or fee to the county, which also gets state and federal money.

Our questions for Bernier:

If Marsy’s Law was in effect at the time the two were arrested, would each and every victim have a right to attend all court proceedings? How do you propose requests be coordinated?  
 
Let’s say only 100 county residents requested to attend the court proceedings. Who would be responsible for finding dates when 100 people could be in court at the same time? Would the cost of that coordination fall to the District Attorney’s Office and the state? Or would the county be asked to pick up the tab?
 
Would the right of victims under Marsy’s Law to attend proceedings override the defendants’ right to speedy trials? 

WJI will report on any response Bernier provides. We're still waiting on State Attorney General Josh Kaul and State Sen. Van H. Wanggaard (R-Racine). 

By Gretchen Schuldt

​The results of 55 of 72 (76%) of Wisconsin counties' 2018 marijuana cases are in!

Some results of the analysis thus far:

• More men than women faced cannabis charges in every county reviewed thus far except Forest County, where the male-to-female ratio is uncertain because of the large number of defendants of unknown genders. The average percentage of female defendants in all counties reviewed was 25%, with the largest share in Forest County (47%) and the lowest in Milwaukee County (5%).
• Brown, Racine, Marathon, Eau Claire, and Columbia counties all issued more criminal cannabis cases  than did Milwaukee County, by far the largest county in the state.
• The 11 counties least likely to issue criminal marijuana charges were Dane, Milwaukee, Lafayette, Green, Kewaunee, Grant, Rock, Pierce, Marinette, Jefferson, Outagamie, and Bayfield. Each of those counties issued fewer than one marijuana case for every 1,000 residents.
• The seven counties most likely to issue cannabis charges are Florence, Burnett, Forest, Monroe, Langlade, Columbia, and Green Lake. Each of those counties issued more than one case for every 200 residents.
  
  

See more by checking out our 2019 Pot Page. 

And see earlier posts here and here.

The Wisconsin Justice Initiative and the American Constitution Society Milwaukee Lawyer Chapter launched this project to examine 2018 criminal cannabis cases filed in all 72 Wisconsin counties in an effort to better understand where, how, and against whom cannabis crimes are prosecuted.