 Ackerman Havas "Walker's judges" is our effort to present information about Gov. Walker's appointees to the bench. The information is taken from the appointees' own judgeship applications. Michelle Ackerman Havas, who apparently is the only candidate for Branch 10 of Milwaukee County Circuit Court, was once a Milwaukee County circuit judge. She was appointed by Gov. Scott Walker in August 2015 and lost her bid for election in April 2016. It looks like she will run unopposed in the April 4 election. (Incumbent Judge Timothy Dugan has been appointed by Walker to the District 1 Court of Appeals bench.) Havas filed her nomination papers Dec. 22. Name: Michelle Ackerman Havas Appointed to: Milwaukee County Circuit Court Appointment date: August 24, 2015; defeated by Jean Kies in 2016 April election. Education: Law School – University of Wisconsin Law School Undergrad – Concordia College, Cardinal Stritch University, Milwaukee Area Technical College Recent Employment: 2016 - present – assistant district attorney, Milwaukee County 2015-2016 - Milwaukee County circuit judge Memberships: Wisconsin State Bar United States District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin Milwaukee Young Lawyer's Association Milwaukee Bar Association Association for Women Lawyers Previous political involvement: NA. "I believe it speaks well of my ability to communicate my message to a large audience as well as my relatability to the Milwaukee market." -- Michelle Ackerman Havas, on finishing second in a 2005 talk show host contest held by WISN (AM-1130), home of Mark Belling and Sean Hannity. Legal experience as an advocate in criminal litigation, civil litigation, administrative proceedings: As civil litigator at Whyte Hirschboeck Dudek worked general civil litigation and insurance defense and represented governmental officials against civil rights and liability claims. While I enjoyed the nature of the practice, I yearned for something more suited to my talents of personal interaction and public service and I left WHD in January, 2002 to be a Westlaw accounts manager. She left after nine months. I realized that my yearning was only going to be quenched by a return to the true service of those in Milwaukee County. I joined the Milwaukee County District Attorney’s Office in November 2002. There she briefly prosecuted misdemeanors before she transferred to Children's Court to handle termination of parental rights cases. Number of cases tried to verdict or judgment: Jury, 39; non-jury, 12. Number of cases on appeal: 110 cases associated with her bar number, but the actual number of families involved may be much smaller. Professional or civic organizations, volunteer activities, service in a church or synagogue, or any other activities or hobbies that could be relevant or helpful to consideration of the application:
Describe any pro bono legal work you have done including dates - N/A All judicial or non-partisan candidates that you have publically endorsed in the last six years: I enthusiastically endorsed Judge Rebecca Bradley and Judge Christopher Dee and appeared at various functions and fundraisers with them....I may have offered my name to other judicial candidates in the past but I do not specifically recall doing so. Quotes: On competing in the 2005 "Milwaukee's Talk Star" competition held by WISN (AM 1130), home of Mark Belling and Sean Hannity -- I finished second in the final voting. I mention this as I believe it speaks well of my ability to communicate my message to a large audience as well as my relatability to the Milwaukee market. Why I want to be a judge – I am the person who is called to serve the people and to apply the laws that have been passed by the legislature. … I wholeheartedly embrace the separation of powers and believe that it is only through respect for the principles upon which this country was founded that we will be able to protect the judiciary from falling prey to the citizenry’s ever-changing political pressures of the day. Judicial philosophy – The citizens of Milwaukee County deserve a judge who believes, as I do, that the rule of law is not merely a suggestion but a mandate. In my years of service, I have strived to maintain that philosophy, not shying away from enforcing the rules or the laws fairly and impartially without regard to any personal feelings or political preferences I may have.... That is not to say, of course, that I believe being a jurist is a mechanized endeavor. Rather, it is necessary to couple my strong respect for the principles of judicial restraint with the sound discretion that I would be called upon to exercise. As I would exercise such discretion, I would bring to bear my strong moral code and work ethic as well as the sense of civic and personal responsibility of which I am proud. "Ms. Havas is able to articulate a judicial philosphy of adherence to the rule of law, applying the law as it is written, and setting aside her own personal beliefs in doing so....I highly recommend Michelle Havas for appointment to the Milwaukee County Circuit Court Bench." -- Judge Rebecca G. Bradley Best Wisconsin or US Supreme Court decision in the last 30 years – Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002) The case involved a challenge to an Ohio statutory scheme designed to provide educational choices for parents of children in the Cleveland School District, which had unconscionable failure rates at every level of the public school system. … The Court, in an opinion authored by Chief Justice Rehnquist, found that the Ohio program was one of the true private choice....The parents were able to “exercise genuine choice among options public and private, secular and religious....” I was most taken with the refusal of the majority to be baited into an analysis of the merits of the program....they did exactly what the framers intended for them to do: Interpret the laws passed by the Legislature and determine if they are constitutional. Whether or not a statutory scheme is effective is not something that a court should concern itself with. Worst United State or Wisconsin Supreme Court decision in the last 30 years – State of Wisconsin v. Jerrell C.J. (2005) In this case, the Court opted to deviate from its constitutionally granted power to apply the law to delve into the legislative branch by creating a law that requires all juvenile custodial interrogations to be recorded if they occur in a place of detention and where feasible if they occur elsewhere. They additionally veered into the executive branch to dictate how law enforcement should handle their interrogations. None of this was necessary to dispose of the case and protect the rights of Jerrell C.J. but was instead an opportunity for an activist court to legislate by fiat.
0 Comments
 Abrahamson State Supreme Court Justice Rebecca Bradley and her four conservative colleagues on the State Supreme Court Wednesday knocked a huge hole in the state's open records law that will allow law enforcement to bury records it doesn't want the public to see. Bradley, writing for the majority, noted the state's commitment to public access to records -- "Wisconsin is firmly committed to open and transparent government" -- then cut a big chunk away from it. As Justice Shirley Abrahamson put it in a dissent, "The question for me is: What has the majority achieved with its opinion grounded in speculative, abstract, and unsubstantiated fears? The answer for me is: A dimming of the light on public oversight of government, especially in matters pertaining to criminal justice." The court specifically ruled, 5-2, that Attorney General Brad Schimel does not have to release two Wisconsin Department of Justice training tapes as requested by the Democratic Party of Wisconsin. Schimel's DOJ argued that release of the tapes would reveal law enforcement techniques used to catch child predators (lower courts ruled those techniques already were widely known) and that release might retraumatize victims in a specific case that had been widely publicized earlier. Bradley was joined by the usual crowd: Justices Michael J. Gableman, Daniel Kelly, Patience Roggensack, and Annette Ziegler. Abrahamson was joined in her dissent by Justice Ann Walsh Bradley. Rebecca Bradley wrote that in a 2009 training video, Schimel -- then Waukesha County district attorney -- "shared the specific strategies and techniques he used, and he provided numerous case-specific examples, even on occasion referring to the cases by name." "The reason for protecting prosecutorial techniques and local police strategies is obvious: if local criminals learn the specific techniques and procedures used by police and prosecutors, the disclosed information could be used to circumvent the law," she wrote. The content of the 2009 video falls squarely into this category." Abrahamson noted that Bradley cited the federal Freedom of Information Act as support for her ruling, though access to state law is governed by state law, which provides more access to records. In addition, she said, the DOJ should have considered redacting the video, rather than banning its release outright. "The majority opinion baldly asserts that redaction is not an option because the records at issue are videos, rather than text documents, and cannot be redacted," Abrahamson wrote. "Nothing in the record reveals whether this assertion is true. If it is true, a transcript can be prepared and redactions shown....It appears, however, that videos can be redacted." The majority "dismisses valid public policy concerns while embracing hollow talk lauding the secrecy of publicly known prosecutorial strategy and police techniques," Abrahamson said. "...the majority opinion offers no workable limits on when protection of crime victims will or will not outweigh the presumption of openness." - Justice Shirley Abrahamson The 2013 video showed Schimel discussing a highly publicized high school sexual extortion case that he prosecuted in Waukesha. Rebecca Bradley said releasing the video could retraumatize the victims.
Its "disclosure would send a strong message to crime victims that the continued pain that sometimes accompanies the pursuit of justice does not end——even when a prosecution is complete and the case is closed," she wrote. She also said the video was akin to a prosecutor's closed case files, which Bradley contended are exempt from disclosure. Abrahamson, though, said the non-disclosure rule was intended to protect confidential informants' identities and prosecutors' discretion. Case law "did not enshrine the entire prosecutorial file beyond the public's view," she wrote. "This court has recognized that not all documents in a prosecutor's file are subject to the commonlaw exception to disclosure." She also questioned how far the majority's victim protection rationale would take it. "The majority opinion offers no workable limits on when protection of crime victims will or will not outweigh the presumption of openness," Abrahamson said. "When a victim of a crime is not identified but is implicated in the record, what is the weight of the thumb on the scale for nondisclosure?" Data from the three individual Municipal Court branches that participated in "Warrant Withdrawal Wednesdays" will not be publicly released, according to Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Maxine White. "We did this for reasons that cannot be measured on paper," she said. Thus far, Municipal Court has released only limited results for the three branches combined.  Source: Milwaukee Municipal Court  Michel White, the county's chief judge, made her comments during a meeting last week of the Community Justice Council, which includes representatives of Milwaukee-area criminal justice agencies and local governments who work to improve the justice system. While White is not generally involved in the day-to-day activities of Milwaukee Municipal Court, she has some oversight functions as chief judge. She is not, however, the Municipal Court records custodian, so her authority to withhold the records is not clear. "I don't understand the justification for refusing flat out to release information," said Brian Michel, the lawyer who asked that the data be released by branch. Compiling such data should not be a big deal, the Legal Aid Society attorney said in an interview. The cases are "still tracked by branch," he said. White's flat assertion that they would not be made public is a "concern," he said. White was joined by the city's three Municipal Court judges -- Phillip Chavez, Valarie Hill, and Derek Mosley -- to talk about the three "Warrant Withdrawal Wednesdays" Municipal Court held last month to encourage people to deal with their Municipal Court cases. Both Michel and Ald. Nik Kovac, who attended the meeting, praised the effort behind the program. "I am glad the Municipal Court is proactively trying to reach the thousands of Milwaukee residents with active warrants," Kovac said later. "The fact that over 1,000 of the 2,400 total citizens who showed up for Warrant Withdrawal Wednesday had previously not appeared in court speaks to the effectiveness of the social media outreach." The court used Facebook to spread the word about the Wednesdays. Kovac said he had concerns, however. "The fact that only 100 of those 2,400 appearances -- less than five percent -- were referred to JusticePoint indicates that even on such a day the court is not adequately addressing the poverty rates in our community -- which are certainly higher than five percent,' he said. "...the court is not adequately addressing the poverty rates in our community..." Ald. Nik Kovac.  White JusticePoint is an agency that evaluates defendants to determine their ability to pay and potential need for mental health or AODA services. Hill, the judge, said all of those referred to JusticePoint were found to qualify for an alternative sentence, but not everyone elected the community service option because of the difficulties in accruing enough hours to pay off their forfeitures.
Indigent Municipal Court defendants are entitled, under law, to sentencing alternatives, such as community service, rather than the usual forfeitures. The city's Municipal Court judges, however, have not routinely fully informed defendants of their rights, as they are required to do under state law. And while the Warrant Withdrawal Wednesdays suspended some enforcement actions against defendants delinquent in paying forfeitures, the forfeitures are not fogiven and the enforcement actions, such as driver's license suspensions and issuing warrants, will begin again if the debts are not paid. "It does us no good as a city to expect those who can't pay to pay," Kovac said. "And there are options other than money for our citizens who can't pay with cash to still pay their debt to society. Hopefully, in the future our Municipal Court will embrace and champion such community service options for the poor in our city." Presiding Municipal Court Judge Phillip Chavez said during the meeting that he does inform defendants of their rights, not just always when proceedings are recorded. WJI has reported that Milwaukee Municipal Court judges, including Chavez, are not fulfilling their legal obligations to inform defendants of their rights. Chavez said cases must be tracked from beginning to end to determine when and if defendants are informed of their rights. State law, however, is quite specific about how and when judges must deliver the message -- orally and in writing, at the time that the judgment (verdict) is rendered. Kovac said he was "distressed" by Chavez's comments. "His response was not, 'Yes, I always follow the statute and inform people of their rights.' It was 'You can't prove I don't because not all of my contacts are recorded.' That response from a (presiding) judge should be concerning to us all. Hopefully all three judges in the future will explicityly and publicly comply with the statute and proactively notify everyone of their possible rights as indigents." Michel said he was concerned that the 1,000+ people making their first Municipal Court appearances during Warrant Withdrawal Wednesdays may not have been fully informed of their rights by all the judges. White, during the Community Justice Council event, also said that she evicted the press from Milwaukee Municipal Court during a Warrant Withdrawal Wednesday. "I ran them out of the building," she said. She said she did not know if she had the authority to eject the press from public courts, but that she was concerned with privacy issues. Courts and courtrooms are generally presumed to be open to the public in Wisconsin. Court officials said they would track the long-term results of Warrant Withdrawal Wednesdays to determine how many defendants default.  Murphy About 25% of youth and adults in the 53206 zip code owed Municipal Court fines as the end of May, according to a Wisconsin Justice Initiative analysis of Municipal Court statistics. The statistics cover outstanding debt on judgments issued between Jan. 1, 2012 and May 31, 2016. Defendants in the 53206 zip code, the highest-poverty zip code in the city, also were the most likely to be cited, racking up 41,900 tickets from 2011 through 2014, according to another set of Municipal Court figures. Yet just 723 defendants in the zip code were offered and accepted alternative sentences, though Municipal Court judges are supposed to offer them to indigent defendants. WJI has reported here and here that Milwaukee Municipal Court judges do not routinely inform defendants of their rights to alternative sentences, as they are required by law to do. The 53206 figures are "pretty shocking and deserve much more research," said Ald. Michael Murphy, chairman of the Common Council's Judiciary and Legislation Committee. Aldermen Milele A. Coggs and Russell W. Stamper II, who represent the 53206 area, did not respond to a request for comment. The Common Council voted last month to spend $45,000 to contract with an attorney to represent indigent defendants in Municipal Court and to supervise third-year law students who will do the same. WJI's zip code analysis assumes that outstanding Milwaukee Municipal Court fines are owed by people who are at least 15 years old. The analysis is based on census figures statistics provided by Municipal Court to the city's Outstanding Debt Work Group. The analysis shows:
 Municipal Court outstanding debt by zip code on judgments from Jan. 1, 2012 and May 31, 2016  Debt distribution by zip code on judgments from Jan. 1, 2012 and May 31, 2016
 Municipal Court outstanding debt by race on judgments from Jan. 1, 2012 and May 31, 2016
 Municipal Court outstanding debt by gender on judgments from Jan. 1, 2012 and May 31, 2016  Crowley There may be as many as four candidates vying for the Municipal Court judgeship now held by Valarie Hill. As WJI reported earlier, Brian Michel, a staff attorney with the Legal Aid Society in Milwaukee, has announced he is running for Hill's seat. Hill. Two other challengers now have joined the race: Assistant City Attorney Kail Decker and William Crowley, a lawyer with Disability Rights Wisconsin. All four candidates have filed campaign registration statements with the Milwaukee Election Commission. Crowley's LinkedIn page says he is a family care and IRIS ombudsman with Disability Rights, a position he has held since October 2014. In that job, according to LinkedIn, Crowley proves assistance to clients and potential clients of publicly funded long-term care. He received his law degree from Marquette University in 2011. Decker has been a Milwaukee assistant city attorney since February 2014. His campaign Facebook page appears to take a direct shot at Hill, known for her caustic approach to those who appear before her.  Decker "A judge should not publicly berate another person, remove a person from court for dubious reasons, or make incorrect legal rulings," it says. "With Kail serving as municipal judge for Branch 1, every person would be able to walk into a respectful, reasonable environment and leave with dignity and confidence in the integrity of the court." Decker graduated from Marquette Law School in 2008. Michel has been with Legal Aid, a public interest law firm that provides legal assistance to low-income Milwaukee County residents with civil legal issues, for three years.  Michel There, he said on his campaign Facebook page, he "provides no-cost representation to low-income residents facing a wide range of issues, from eviction defense and unemployment compensation appeals, to defending against municipal citations and predatory consumer transactions." Hill has been a Municipal Court judge since 2004. She received her law degree from the University of Akron School of Law.  Hill The general election is April 4. The primary election will be Feb. 21.
Municipal Court judges serve 4-year-terms. Hill is paid $133,289 per year.  Here is a list of who has filed campaign registration statements thus far for spring judicial elections, according to the State Elections Commission. Candidates could start circulating nomination papers on Dec. 1, and the last day for filing completed nomination papers and registration statements is Jan. 3. That means that candidates,, including incumbents, still have plenty of time to file.
The deadline for incumbents to file declarations of noncandidacy is is Dec. 23. Supreme Court: Annette K. Ziegler (inc.) Court of Appeals District 1: William W. Brash III (inc.) Court of Appeals District 2: None (incumbent is Brian K. Hagedorn) Court of Appeals District 4: Rock County Circuit Judge Michael R. Fitzpatrick (Incumbent Paul B. Higginbotham not seeking re-election) Burnett County Circuit Court: Melissia R. Mogen, David Grindell (office is vacant) Columbia County Circuit Court Branch 2: W. Andrew Voigt (inc.) Dane County Circuit Court Branch 9: Richard G. Niess (inc.) Dane County Circuit Court Branch 12: Marilyn Townsend, Jill J. Karofsky (incumbent is Clayton Kawski) Dodge County Circuit Court Branch 2: Martin J. De Vries (inc.), Todd A. Snow, Randall E. Doyle Door County Circuit Court Branch 2: David L. Weber, (inc.) Fond du Lac County Circuit Court Branch 5: Robert Wirtz (inc.) Grant County Circuit Court Branch 1: Robert P. VanDeHey (inc.) Green Lake County Circuit Court: Mark Slate (inc.) Iron County Circuit Court: Patrick J. Madden (inc.) Jefferson County Circuit Court Branch 4: Bennett J. Brantmeier (Incumbent Randy R. Koschnick is not seeking re-election) Kenosha County Circuit Court Branch 4: Anthony G. Milisauskas (inc.) Kenosha County Circuit Court Branch 7: Jodi L. Meier (inc.), John Anthony Ward Manitowoc County Circuit Court Branch 3: Patricia Ann Koppa, Donald J. Chewning (incumbent Jerome L. Fox is not seeking re-election) Marathon County Circuit Court Branch 4: Gregory J. Strasser (inc.) Marathon County Circuit Court Branch 5: Michael K. Moran (inc.) Milwaukee County Circuit Court Branch 1: Maxine A. White (inc.) Milwaukee County Circuit Court Branch 4: Michael J. Hanrahan (inc.) Milwaukee County Circuit Court Branch 9: Paul Van Grunsven (inc.) Milwaukee County Circuit Court Branch 10: Michelle Ackerman Havas, Timothy G. Dugan (inc.) (Dugan has been named to a District 1 Court of Appeals seat and will not seek re-election to his circuit court seat) Milwaukee County Circuit Court Branch 13: Mary E. Triggiano (inc.) Milwaukee County Circuit Court Branch 18: Pedro A. Colon (inc.) Milwaukee County Circuit Court Branch 19: Dennis R. Cimpl (inc.) Milwaukee County Circuit Court Branch 21: Michael Damon Phillips, Cynthia Davis (inc.) Milwaukee County Circuit Court Branch 33: Carl Ashley, (inc.) Milwaukee County Circuit Court Branch 35: Frederick C. Rosa (inc.) Milwaukee County Circuit Court Branch 35: Jeffrey Kremers (inc.) Milwaukee County Circuit Court Branch 47: Scott Alan Wales, Kashoua Kristy Yang (incumbent John Siefert has indicated he is not seeking re-election) Oconto County Circuit Court Branch 1: Michael T. Judge (inc.) Outagamie County Circuit Court Branch 1: Mark J. McGinnis (inc.) Polk County Circuit Court Branch 1: Malia Theresa Malone, Daniel J. Tolan (seat is vacant) Polk County Circuit Court Branch 2: Jeff Anderson (inc.) Racine County Circuit Court Branch 3: Emily S. Mueller (inc.) Rock County Circuit Court Branch 6: John M. Wood (inc.) Sheboygan County Circuit Court Branch 2: Kent Hoffmann (inc.) Sheboygan County Circuit Court Branch 3: Angela W. Sutkiewicz (inc) Sheboygan County Circuit Court Branch 5: Daniel J. Borowski (inc.) Trempeleau County Circuit Court: Rian Radtke, Rick Schaumberg, Charles V. Feltes (inc.) Vernon County Circuit Court: Timonthy J. Gaskell, Darcy Rood (incumbent Michael J. Rosborough is not seeking re-election) Washington County Circuit Court Branch 1: James G. Pouros (inc.) Washington County Circuit Court Branch 3: Todd K. Martens (inc.), Robert T. Olson. Waukesha County Circuit Court Branch 3: Ralph M. Ramirez (inc.) Waukesha County Circuit Court Branch 4: Lloyd V. Carter (inc.) Waukesha County Circuit Court Branch 11: William Domina (inc.) Waupaca County Circuit Court Branch 1: Troy L. Nielsen, Eric Daniel Hendrickson (incumbent is Phiip M. Kirk) Waushara County Circuit Court: Guy Dutcher (inc.) Winnebago County Circuit Court Branch 2: Scott C. Woldt (inc.) Winnebago County Circuit Court Branch 6: Daniel J. Bissett (inc.) WJI is reposting reporting from the old storyhill.net website and affidavits from County Jail inmates unfortunate enough to be booked during Sheriff David Clarke's tenure to show just what kind of malfeasance the public can expect if President-elect Donald Trump gives Clarke a federal job. The affidavits were part of a court case alleging thousands of men and women were improperly detained in the jail under excessive lengths of time, in violation of a 2001 consent decree. Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Clare Fiorenza eventually found the county in contempt of court for the violations. County says 16,000 consent decree violations shouldn't count Sept. 2, 2005 -- The Sheriff's Department substantially complied with a legally-binding consent decree governing jail conditions despite more than 16,000 violations of one of the decree's provisions, lawyers for the county say. Meanwhile, a lawyer for the Legal Aid Society of Milwaukee Inc. said a key apect of the county's effort to control the jail population -- moving pre-trial inmates to the House of Correction -- "is not a solution...in the short run or the long run." "Of immediate concern is whether jail inmates transferred to the HOC are at risk of being held in overcrowded and unsafe conditions at the House of Correction," attorney Peter Koneazny wrote. The Sheriff's Department, over a two-year period, held more than 16,000 inmates more than 30 hours in the jail’s booking room in violation of the consent decree. The practice ended in April 2004, shortly after the Legal Aid Society of Milwaukee Inc. and the American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin Foundation Inc. uncovered it. Legal Aid and the ACLU are seeking to have the Sheriff's Department held in contempt for the violations. The county argues since it ended the violations, it cannot be ordered to pay damages for the violations that did occur. "While this Court certainly has inherent contempt powers, the Legislature has reasonably regulated the use of those powers to preclude the imposition of a remedial sanction such as money damages in a situation such as the case at bar, where the allegedly comtemptuous conduct ended at least some 15 months ago," the county said in Circuit Court filings. The county also said it did not believe the Sheriff's Department was in contempt, as the ACLU and Legal Aid allege. The Sheriff's Department did what it could to control overall inmate population, the county said. Crowding throughout the jail contributed to the long booking room stays because there was no place available to assign people in booking. Sheriff David Clarke, for example, tried to control crowding by agreeing in March 2004 to hold at the jail a maximum of 125 state inmates accused of violating probation or parole, the county lawyers say. Clarke, however, was not required to accept any of those inmates, and the county was silent on why housing 125 inmates at the jail that didn't have to be there helped control the facility's population. Clarke also agreed, in January 2004, to lease to the state up to 64 beds for state inmates nearing the end of their prison sentences. The county did not even mention that agreement in its response. WJI is reposting reporting from the old storyhill.net website and affidavits from County Jail inmates unfortunate enough to be booked during Sheriff David Clarke's tenure to show just what kind of malfeasance the public can expect if President-elect Donald Trump gives Clarke a federal job. The affidavits were part of a court case alleging thousands of men and women were improperly detained in the jail under excessive lengths of time, in violation of a 2001 consent decree. Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Clare Fiorenza eventually found the county in contempt of court for the violations. Clarke's jail scandal: "dangerous" conditions alleged Inmates denied sleep, decent food, medications, filings say Aug. 1, 2005 -- Conditions in the County Jail's overcrowded booking area -- where Sheriff David Clarke's staff improperly held thousands of inmates for long periods -- were "degrading, dehumanizing, and dangerous to both inmates and jail personnel," according to documents filed in Circuit Court. "Lab animals get better treatment than inmates in the county jail booking room," a former inmate said in an affidavit. "The floor was always a mess from urine and toilet paper around the toilet and trash from uneaten sandwiches on the floor," said another. "It was disgusting, aggravating, unsanitary, and frustrating...it reminded me of drawings I have seen of slave ships with slave packed as close together as they could be with no room to move." Important medications were withheld from inmates, silverfish crawled on concrete floors where men and women jammed into small holding cells tried to sleep, and communal toilets were filthy with urine and feces, according to the Legal Aid Society of Milwaukee Inc. and the American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin Foundation Inc. "Lab animals get better treatment than inmates in the county jail booking room." A judge already has said that the Sheriff's Department violated a 2001 consent decree by holding inmates in the jail's booking hour for more than 30 hours. There were more than 16,600 violations over a 1 1/2 year period, according to the ACLU and Legal Aid. More than 5,600 people were held in booking for two or more days, they said. "There were no beds in booking, and no blankets or pillows. The lights were on continuously, both in open waiting and in the cells," the ACLU and Legal Aid said in a brief. "I was shocked that we were expected to stay awake for several days without the ability to shower, brush our teeth or change our undergarments," one former inmate said in an affidavit. The overall booking area inmate population often exceeded the 110 anticipated by the consent decree, according to the brief. The booking area includes an open waiting area with benches and 17 or so holding cells. Inmates are not allowed to lie down in the open area, and most of the cells have a single cement slab big enough for one adult to lie on, according to the filings. The cells, under state standards, would be big enough for one or two inmates to sleep in if they had beds, Legal Aid and ACLU said. County jail inmates in booking, however, were jammed eight to thirteen to a cell for shifts of eight hours or more, according to the filings. Then they would be rotated another cell or back to the open area. The new filings were made to support the contention by the ACLU and Legal Aid that the Sheriff's Department should be required to pay damages for the repeated violations of the court order. The Sheriff Department's top staff were aware of the violations, but did nothing to end them until the county admitted in court -- after months of denials -- that they occurred, according to the filings. The brief and the attached affidavits by inmates detail deplorable conditions in the booking area. One inmate, who is HIV-positive, said he was denied his arthritis medication. "I was forced to sit on hard benches, and I was not allowed to stand or lie down...Cells on the side of the main booking room were supposed to let us lie down and sleep, but the rooms were really tiny and had up to 15 people crammed in them. There wasn't enough room for everyone to lie down, so I stood or leaned against the wall most of the time that I was in the cell. I did not lie down on the floor because it was very dirty." Another inmate said "It was difficult to sleep because of the crowding, the smells, the cold and the fact that the lights were on at all times. The cells were also infested with bugs that looked like little, white centipedes." Deputy Inspector Jerianne Feiten, in charge of the jail from fall 2002 through early 2004, testified that if inmates -- some of whom were held for more than 100 hours -- slept on the floor, that was their "choice." The toilet in the holding cell was separated from the rest of the room only by a partition that reached neither the floor nor the ceiling, according to the filings. The sink was connected to the toilet. "The floor was wet with water and saliva from people spitting and spilling while trying to drink and from urine that sprayed outside the toilet," the inmate said. "The toilet itself was disgusting. There was a time when an inmate threw up into the toilet, but some of the vomit missed the toilet. The smell was terrible." Several inmates said the food was inedible. Bologna or salami sandwiches were served three times a day. "To me they looked like something out of a dumpster and the meat looked green," an inmate said. Some detainees used the sandwiches as make-shift pillows. "Once, when I tried to flush the toilet, the handle was so dirty that my hand actually slipped off of it." A 21-year old woman who was 13 weeks pregnant when she was in the jail said a holding cell was cleaned with hard chemicals that made her feel sick. "A guard told me that an inmate who had recently been in that cell had a contagious disease, but nobody would tell me what disease or whether I should be tested for anything," she said. The toilets were filthy and "there was no soap availble to wash our hands, and I could only rinse them in water," she said. "Once, when I tried to flush the toilet, the handle was so dirty that my hand actually slipped off of it." "The lack of hygiene contributed to the horrible conditions in the booking area," another woman said. "We had no toilet paper when we had to go to the bathroom....Our cell was cleaned only once during the three days, and one roll of toilet paper was left in our cell (for 13 or 14 women). That was the only time we had any toilet paper." "Two women in my holding cell had their menstrual periods, but they could not get any tampons or sanitary pads," she said. "They had blood showing through their pants, and they left spots of blood on the ground when they sat down. The county has 30 days to explain to Circuit Judge Clare Fiorenza why Sheriff David Clarke's department should not have to pay damages. |
Donate
Help WJI advocate for justice in Wisconsin
|
RSS Feed