​To study bail jumping in Wisconsin, WJI and the Mastantuono Coffee & Thomas law firm are looking county by county at 2021 bail-jumping charges. Which counties are charging bail jumping the most? Who are some of the defendants? What happens to those cases? We'll report the statistics from individual counties and tell you the stories from randomly chosen cases.

Misdemeanor bail jumping occurs when a person out on bond on a misdemeanor charge violates the conditions of that bond. Felony bail jumping occurs when a person out on bond on a felony charge violates the conditions of that bond. 

A bail-jumping offense may not itself be a crime. Missing a court date, violating a local ordinance, having a drink, or using an illegal drug could all be bail-jumping offenses if bond conditions prohibit the activity.

Largest number of bail-jumping charges issued in a single case: 12
Number of felony bail-jumping charges issued: 338
Number of misdemeanor bail-jumping charges issued: 263

*Felony cases can include felony or misdemeanor bail-jumping charges or both; misdemeanor cases can include only misdemeanor bail-jumping charges. Case counts reported as of January 2022. Criminal traffic cases are not included in this analysis.

​Case File

Two Menomonie police officers responded the evening of October 29, 2021, to a report of a domestic incident at an apartment. A man reported hearing a woman yell “get off of me” and then some scuffling. 

Derick Lazell had just exited the apartment when police arrived. When police said they needed to speak to him, Lazell opened the door to the apartment and called the woman out to talk. She appeared at the door with smudged mascara as if she had been crying.

The officers separated Lazell and the woman to talk. Lazell admitted he had been arguing loudly with his girlfriend after confronting her about cheating on him. He complained that she never did anything for him, never cooked, and would not have sex with him.

The officer noticed small scratches on Lazell’s face. Lazell said they were self-inflicted when he put his hands to his face in frustration with his girlfriend. Lazell denied any physical altercation had occurred.

The girlfriend told the second officer that she and Lazell had argued on and off all day after he accused her of cheating, but nothing physical had happened. She said that when she yelled “get off of me” he was yelling close to her face and she pushed him away.

The officers switched, and the first officer asked the girlfriend about the scratches on Lazell’s face. The girlfriend said Lazell had abused her physically in the past, but not that day. She said she had been sitting on the couch while Lazell stood in front of her with his hands on her shoulders, yelling. She said she leaned back to create distance and Lazell fell on top of her, and the scratches may have occurred then. The officer examined the girlfriend’s hands but did not see skin on her nails.

When the first officer returned to Lazell and asked whether Lazell had argued with his girlfriend at the couch Lazell denied leaning over her or falling on her. He said he had been sitting beside her. He said his girlfriend was trying to set him up but would not give further details.

The officers arrested Lazell for domestic disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor punishable by 90 days in jail and a $1,000 fine. The complaint filed on November 1 charged Lazell as a repeater due to three prior misdemeanors for possession of amphetamine and drug paraphernalia and bail jumping. The repeater enhancement raised the possible jail term to two years.

On November 1, Dunn County Circuit Judge Christina Mayer set a $500 signature bond. Lazell signed the bond and was released the same day. The bond conditions included that Lazell not commit any new crimes.

On December 11, 2021, Menomonie police were dispatched to the same apartment for a welfare check. A man called to say he had received a photo of bruises on his daughter’s arm from his daughter’s friend. His daughter was Lazell’s girlfriend. The friend indicated that Lazell had caused the bruises.

While enroute to the apartment, police contacted the girlfriend by phone and asked if she was okay. She said she was fine for the time being and confirmed that Lazell had caused bruises on her arms when he grabbed her earlier in the day. The girlfriend indicated that she was alone in the apartment. Lazell had left by foot, and the girlfriend gave officers a description of Lazell’s clothing.

The girlfriend explained on the phone that she and Lazell had broken up a week earlier and she was staying with her new boyfriend. She had returned to Lazell’s apartment to retrieve some of her property. Lazell was emotional and begged her not to leave him but then became angry, grabbed her arms and pushed her against a doorway and then into the bedroom. He then would not let her leave until the officer called.

Based on prior information from contacts with Lazell, police looked for him in the laundry room of the apartment building but did not find him.

An officer then responded to the apartment and questioned the girlfriend. She confirmed the events she discussed on the phone and showed the officer bruises on her right arm. The officer saw three bruise marks in a pattern suggesting they were caused by fingers or a hand.

She also gave police two other apartments where Lazell sometimes could be located, but police did not find him at either place.

An officer contacted the girlfriend again. She said that Lazell had been texting her to see if he could come back. She and the officer agreed that she should say yes. Officers waited for Lazell and intercepted him when he appeared.

Lazell seemed confused about why police were questioning him. He said his girlfriend had been staying with him and was lying about him harming her. One officer indicated that that statement conflicted with information from a police call at the apartment just a few days earlier, at which time the girlfriend was staying with her new boyfriend.

When asked about why the girlfriend had bruises on her arms, Lazell seemed to panic and said he wanted the officers to look at his text messages. He said the girlfriend’s new boyfriend had bruised her when she did not want to have sex with him.

The text messages Lazell showed the officers included normal conversations as well as arguments. To the officers they confirmed that Lazell, the girlfriend, and her new boyfriend seemed to have a toxic love-triangle relationship.

Lazell was arrested and charged with misdemeanor domestic abuse battery as a repeater, disorderly conduct as a repeater, and misdemeanor bail jumping based on violating the November 1 release conditions.

Mayer set a $250 cash bond with the condition the Lazell have no contact with the girlfriend.

Lazell remained in custody until mid-April 2022 due to revocation in a Barron County case. He was released on April 18 after Mayer modified the cash bond to a signature bond.

On October 10, 2022, Lazell pleaded guilty to domestic abuse disorderly conduct as a repeater in both cases. The battery and bail jumping charges were dismissed. Mayer sentenced Lazell to costs and surcharges of $553 in each case.

​Our methodology: WJI and Mastantuono Coffee & Thomas determined the number of felony and misdemeanor bail-jumping cases and charges in each county through court data. The total number of felony and misdemeanor cases filed in a county was obtained through the state's online court system. Cases selected for the "case file" section are chosen randomly through a random number-generator web site. Facts set forth in the case file section are allegations from criminal complaints.

The intent of the project is to show a variety of bail-jumping cases and the frequency with which such charges are made.

Attorney Jessie Long joined WJI on December 15 to discuss Legal Action of Wisconsin's Center for Driver's License Recovery and Employability (CDLRE). The CDLRE helps low-income people reinstate or get their driver’s licenses so they can get to and from work. Long is one of two Legal Action attorneys who staff the CDLRE, which is located at the Milwaukee Area Technical College's downtown campus.

Lack of a valid driver's license can impact the one's job opportunities and the ability to get to work on time. Driving without a valid license may result in additional tickets that can create debt that low-income people cannot afford. Attorneys at the CDLRE help clients navigate the administrative and judicial requirements to get their licenses back.

Long discussed the high percentage of license suspensions caused by a person's failure to pay prior municipal forfeitures and how a suspension for failure to pay often does not relate to one's driving ability. Suspensions for failure to pay last longer than revocations for first-offense operating while intoxicated offenses and most suspensions due to points. Also, municipalities that suspend licenses for failure to pay don't necessarily collect more revenue than municipalities that do not. Several states have moved away from license suspensions as a means of enforcing payments for tickets, but Wisconsin statutes still allow it.

Hear more about the impact of license suspensions on the poor and what the CDLRE does to help people get licensed again.

Note: We are crunching Supreme Court of Wisconsin decisions down to size. The rule for this is that no justice gets more than 10 paragraphs as written in the actual decision. The "upshot" and "background" sections do not count as part of the 10 paragraphs because of their summary and very necessary nature. We've also removed citations from the opinion for ease of reading, but have linked to important cases cited or information about them. ​Italics indicate WJI insertions except for case names, which also are italicized.
​
The case: State of Wisconsin v. Charles W. Richey
 
Majority: Justice Rebecca Frank Dallet (13 pages), joined by Justices Ann Walsh Bradley, Rebecca Grassl Bradley, and Jill J. Karofsky
 
Dissent: Justice Patience Drake Roggensack (6 pages), joined by Chief Justice Annette Kingsland Ziegler and Justice Brian K. Hagedorn

The upshot
 
The Fourth Amendment requires a police officer to have particularized reasonable suspicion that a crime or non-criminal traffic violation took place before performing a traffic stop.  Here, a stop based on the generic description of a Harley-Davidson motorcycle recently seen driving erratically in the area fell short of that threshold. . . .

                                                                                                   * * *

We therefore reverse the decision of the court of appeals and remand to the circuit court with instructions to vacate the judgment of conviction and to grant Richey's motion to suppress.
 ​
Background
 
Officer Alexis Meier was on patrol in the Village of Weston at 10:59 PM on a Saturday night in late April. Over the radio, she heard a report that a sheriff's deputy was investigating a disabled motorcycle at a nearby intersection. After just fifteen seconds, the deputy cleared that stop without explanation. Five minutes later, at 11:04 PM, that same sheriff's deputy told nearby officers to be on the lookout for a Harley-Davidson motorcycle driving erratically and speeding north on Alderson Street (near the intersection with Jelenik Avenue)—approximately a mile away from the location he had given for the disabled motorcycle. The sheriff's deputy did not give any additional details about either the motorcycle or its driver. Officer Meier later said that she believed that the motorcycle the deputy saw on Alderson Street was fleeing police.

Five minutes after the deputy's report, at 11:09 PM, Officer Meier spotted a motorcycle driving east on Schofield Avenue a little more than a block west of the intersection with Alderson Street—about a half-mile from the reported location of the speeding Harley. Traffic was light at that time of night. Additionally, Officer Meier had seen relatively few motorcycles out that early in the year and none around the time of the deputy's report. Meier looked up the registration, which showed that it was a Harley-Davidson registered to Richey. She followed the Harley-Davidson for several blocks, but did not see any erratic driving, speeding, or other traffic violations. Meier nevertheless performed a traffic stop, suspecting that this Harley-Davidson was the one seen driving erratically on Alderson Street five minutes earlier.

The court included a map to aid the reader:

The guts

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons . . . against unreasonable searches and seizures." Investigative stops, including traffic stops, are seizures and must therefore comply with the Fourth Amendment. 

To conduct an investigative stop, the police must have "reasonable, articulable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot." Reasonable suspicion must be founded on concrete, particularized facts warranting suspicion of a specific individual, not "'inchoate and unparticularized suspicion[s] or hunch[es].'" We assess reasonable suspicion in light of the totality of the circumstances.  Thus, we look at the "whole picture" to determine whether the officer had reasonable suspicion, not each fact in isolation. 

The whole picture here includes the following information known to Officer Meier before she stopped Richey's motorcycle:

• A Harley-Davidson was driving erratically and speeding north on Alderson Street towards Schofield Avenue five minutes earlier.
• Meier  first  saw  Richey's  motorcycle  driving  east  on Schofield Avenue a little more than a block west of the intersection with Alderson Street——about a half-mile from the reported location of the speeding Harley.
• Richey's motorcycle was a Harley-Davidson and was the only motorcycle she saw around the time of the deputy's report.
• Meier followed Richey for several blocks but did not observe any speeding, erratic driving, or other traffic violations.
• Traffic was light that night, and Meier had seen relatively few motorcycles out that early in the year.

It is undisputed that the only reason Officer Meier pulled Richey over is she suspected he was the erratic driver the deputy saw five minutes earlier. The question is whether that suspicion was reasonable.

Although we acknowledge that it is a close question, we hold that the stop was not supported by reasonable suspicion. To clear the reasonable-suspicion threshold, Officer Meier's suspicions had to be particularized; she needed concrete reasons for believing that Richey's Harley-Davidson and the one seen five minutes earlier speeding north on Alderson Street were one and the same. But the sheriff's deputy's generic description of a Harley-Davidson gave her very little to work with. Except for the manufacturer, she knew nothing specific about the Harley the deputy saw—not the model, type, size, or color, let alone a license plate number. Nor did she know anything about the driver, what he or she was wearing, whether he or she wore a helmet, or even whether the driver appeared to be a man or a woman. And although she followed Richey for several blocks before initiating the stop, there is no indication that she radioed the deputy during that time to ask for more details.

The State nevertheless argues that Officer Meier's suspicions were particularized because Richey's motorcycle "fit a highly specific and particular description." Namely, it was a Harley driving in the same general area as the deputy's report late in the evening and at a time of year when relatively few motorcycles were on the roads. These facts are part of the totality of the circumstances, but they are not enough to transform Officer Meier's hunch into particularized reasonable suspicion. For starters, the "highly specific" description of a Harley-Davidson could apply to a large number of vehicles. After all, Wisconsin is the home of Harley-Davidson, and it is one of, if not the most popular manufacturers of motorcycles in Wisconsin. Although reasonable suspicion is a low bar, it is not so low that it allows the State to stop so many otherwise law-abiding citizens based on such a generic description. Additionally, although the circuit court found that it was "the beginning, very beginning, of [motorcycle] season," it also acknowledged that "[c]ertainly, people drive their bikes in April."

That Richey's Harley was spotted close to the location of the deputy's call just five minutes later does not add much to the particularity of Officer Meier's suspicions either. Although proximity in time and place to a report of criminal activity can, under some circumstances, provide some of the particularity that is otherwise lacking in a report of criminal activity, Richey's exact location and direction of travel raise more questions than they answer. Returning to the map above, the letter "D" marks where the deputy saw the erratic driver, and the arrow shows the direction of travel. Although Richey was seen in that general area five minutes later, at the spot marked with the letter "A," we note that Richey was headed east on Schofield Avenue towards the intersection with Alderson Street at that time.  In other words, Richey was driving towards the reported location of the erratic and speeding driver when Officer Meier first saw him. Given that Officer Meier thought the erratic driver was fleeing police that would be a strange choice. Additionally, counsel for both parties acknowledged at oral argument that the speed limits in the area were likely the 25 or 30 mile-per-hour limits applicable to most city streets. Even at normal speed, it would take only about a minute to travel from the location of the deputy's report to where the officer saw Richey, and a driver fleeing police at high speed could have gone much farther in the same amount of time. Thus, in order for Richey to have been the subject of the deputy's report, he would have had to have driven north on Alderson Street at high speed, ridden around the general area for several minutes, and eventually looped back in the direction he came from while now driving normally. This unlikely sequence of events, when coupled with the deputy's generic description of a Harley- Davidson headed north on Alderson Street, demonstrates that Officer Meier's suspicions were not sufficiently particular to Richey. 

                                                                                                  * * *

. . . . Here, the sheriff's deputy reported a Harley-Davidson driving erratically north on Alderson Street at high speed and then lost sight of it. And Officer Meier had to use a combination of logic and guesswork to locate that motorcycle. The problem is that . . . the deputy gave Officer Meier little on which to ground her logic. She did not know anything about the motorcycle other than that it was a Harley-Davidson and she knew nothing about its driver. And the timing and location at which Officer Meier first saw Richey did not fill those gaps, since these facts support only a tenuous inference that Richey was the motorcyclist Officer Meier was looking for. Accordingly, we hold that, in light of the totality of the circumstances, Officer Meier lacked reasonable suspicion to perform the stop. . . .

The dissent

Reasonable suspicion is a common-sense test based on the totality of the circumstances known to the officer at the time of the seizure. Stated otherwise, "was the action of law enforcement officers reasonable under all the facts and circumstances present[.]" Reasonable suspicion includes all factual circumstances and the reasonable inferences arising from those facts. I conclude that the record before us fully supports reasonable suspicion to stop Charles W. Richey; and therefore, evidence of Richey's eighth Operating While Intoxicated (OWI) violation was admissible. There is nothing in the record that allows us to conclude Officer Meier's inference that Richey was the motorcyclist her colleague warned of was unreasonable. Because the majority opinion refuses to accept reasonable inferences from undisputed facts, it enables Richey to achieve suppression of evidence of drunk driving that was apparent after he was stopped. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.

                                                                                                 * * *

The question here is at what point does societal interest in investigating a reported law violation rise to the level of reasonably supporting an investigative stop. LaFave has identified six factors that we have concluded should be considered in assessing whether the facts and the reasonable inferences from those facts support reasonable suspicion for an investigatory stop:

(1) [T]he particularity of the description of the offender or the vehicle in which he fled; (2) the size of the area in which the offender might be found, as indicated by such facts as the elapsed time since the crime occurred; (3) the number of persons about in that area; (4) the known or probable direction of the offender's flight; (5) observed activity by the particular person stopped; and (6) knowledge or suspicion that the person or vehicle stopped has been involved in other criminality of the type presently under investigation.
 
Here, Officer Meier clearly articulated that only five minutes before she saw Richey, she was asked to be on the lookout for a Harley-Davidson motorcycle that another officer had observed speeding and driving in a reckless manner. When she saw Richey, she called in the license plate on his cycle and confirmed that his bike was a Harley-Davidson. Her sighting was within the geographic area in which the speeding motorcyclist was seen. In addition, she had seen no other motorcycles in that area and it was late at night when she stopped Richey.

Furthermore, it was reasonable to infer that Richey was the driver of the Harley-Davidson another officer had reported as speeding and committing other traffic violations. Richey was present in the same area as the reported traffic violator; his presence was within five minutes of (the sheriff deputy's) report and request that other officers be on the lookout for a Harley-Davidson motorcyclist. It was late at night and Officer Meier had seen no other motorcycles. April 28, the date of the stop, also was too early in the season for many motorcyclists to be out. It was possible that if Officer Meier did not act "immediately the opportunity for further investigation would be lost[.]" "A minimal amount of facts may, under these circumstances, be given greater weight than if the opportunity to act in the future is not foreclosed."

It also is important to our analysis to note that there is nothing in the record that causes the inference that Richey was the driver of the Harley-Davidson motorcycle that (the sheriff's deputy) had seen speeding five minutes earlier to be an unreasonable inference. The majority opinion does not address why the brief period of time after the lookout was called and the defined location of the traffic violation that are part of the reasonable suspicion analysis, as LaFave and we required in (a prior case), do not support reasonable suspicion.

The facts are not in dispute and reasonable inferences from those facts support reasonable suspicion that it was Richey who was speeding and driving his motorcycle in a reckless fashion. Based on the officer's articulable facts, it was not unreasonable to stop Richey on that night. Accordingly, I would affirm the court of appeals and I dissent from the majority opinion.

​Name: Patricia A. Baker
 
Appointed to: Portage County Circuit Court
 
Appointment date: Dec. 7, 2020 (elected to a six-year term in April 2022)
 
Education:
Law School – University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin
Undergraduate – University of Minnesota-Twin Cities, Minneapolis, Minnesota
High School – ​La Crosse Central High, La Crosse, Wisconsin
 
Recent legal employment:
March 2017-present – Private practice attorney, Kessler & Greer Law Office/ALR LLC, Stevens Point, Wisconsin
November 2011-March 2017 – Clerk of Circuit Court, Portage County, Wisconsin
December 2009-November 2011 – Assistant city attorney (part-time), Wausau, Wisconsin
October 2007-November 2011 – Assistant district attorney (part-time), Waushara County, Wisconsin
November 2005-December 2009 – Solo practioner, Stevens Point, Wisconsin
March 2000-November 2005 – Assistant district attorney, Marathon County, Wisconsin
 
Bar and Administrative Memberships:
State Bar of Wisconsin
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin
 
General character of practice:
Approximately 30 percent is CPS (child protective services) and APS (adult protective services) Chips and guardianship matters - both as adverse counsel (parents and ward) and guardian ad litem work including Protective Placement reviews and initial petition matters. Another 30 percent is representation of parties in divorces and post-judgment work. I also work as a guardian ad litem in family cases. Approximately 30 percent is representation in criminal matters: felony, misdemeanor and probation revocation.
 
I work in four counties: Portage; Wood; Marathon and Waupaca. I have several civil matters and administrative review matters with WI. Dept of Families. I am also a Portage County Family Court mediator and conduct one to two mediations each month, as well as mediations for other types of matters.
 
Describe typical clients:
I am court-appointed in many cases however have many private clients in all of the above categories, as well. With regards to my criminal cases, I have slightly more female clients than male which is my choice. I believe that women frequently have different needs and goals in criminal court which are frequently not met by male attorneys. I also have multiple Legal Aid Society appointments where I represent indigent women in family cases.
 
Number of cases tried to verdict: Approximately 40-50 criminal and CPS jury trials
 
List up to three significant trials, appeals, or other legal matters in which you participated as a judge or lawyer in the past seven years:
1) K. S. was a Marathon County criminal case involving a young woman who was a child sexual assault survivor and a sexual exploitation victim. Many survivors have a tumultuous experience with law enforcement, and she was no different. When I met K.S. she was in jail having been arrested for residing with a drug dealer and having distribution quantity drugs and weapons located in her home. She was held in custody on a $10,000 cash bond. Our initial meeting was 2½ hours. It was clear she had made many poor choices based on an elementary need for companionship. She and I identified a strong support network for her - however they were all located in Milwaukee. I needed to get her out of the jail and to a place where she could receive the support and accountability that would set her up for success. My client had a significant criminal record. The District Attorney was seeking a lengthy prison sentence. He was opposed to her release on bond citing potential for escape, for non-appearance, potential for new crimes etc. I also needed to convince the judge, the former District Attorney, to reverse her decision to impose a $10,000 cash bond - something wholly unobtainable for my client.
 
We held a contested evidentiary motion hearing to modify her bond in 2019. I had multiple witnesses including the Executive Director from Lotus Legal Clinic in Milwaukee and a former Milwaukee County Family Court Commissioner testify as to the "plan" we created to support K.S, house her, and hold her accountable to the court.
 
At the conclusion of the hearing the Judge stated that she had never reversed an order for such a large cash bond, but felt that we had put together a plan for K.S. that could be successful. The judge released K.S. on a $10,000 signature bond and she never missed another court appearance. The longer that K.S. was in the community on bond, her chances to avoid prison improved. We went back to court for her sentencing approximately ten months later. By then, she established a solid track record that supported probation with possible early termination. This was a successful outcome for me; for K.S.; but also for the criminal justice system. K.S. is actively working with other exploitation survivors now. She is not taking a bed in Taycheedah and she is contributing to her community as a citizen now. I could not be prouder of K.S. and her accomplishments since my first meeting with her in the Marathon County Jail.
 
2) K.F. is a woman with a four-year-old daughter who was a product of an unprovable sexual assault. K.F. is indigent and did not have an attorney to defend against the challenge the biological father mounted against K.F.'s "good cause finding" to not reveal the identity of the father in the child support agency.
 
Once he found out through various small-town contacts that K.F. had given birth to his child he began using the legal system to harass her. He filed motion after motion badgering her into agreeing to a minimal placement order with the child. He continued with threats to take the child away from K.F. completely and permanently. The Guardian ad litem in the matter contacted me and asked if l would consider representing K.F. through the Portage County Legal Aid Society. I agreed to do so.
 
In the first hearing (November 2017) we were able to minimize the father's contact with the child until a variety of requirements were met, e.g. psychological evaluations and counseling. Since that time, we have held thirteen evidentiary hearings that have involved every family court challenge imaginable. We have involved Child Protective Services, restraining orders, multiple levels of law enforcement, multiple psychological professionals, and multiple medical professionals throughout these contested hearings. The father was ultimately diagnosed with significant psychological disorders that explain the ferocity of his legal demands in these proceedings. We also learned through a lengthy background investigation that the man left a trail of criminal convictions and unseemly activity in the state in which he had previously resided.
 
We do not yet have a final order in the matter but we have achieved sole legal custody for K.F. as well as primary physical placement and a variety of rules that protect the child and mother. The case is set for the fourteenth evidentiary hearing in the near future.
 
This case has been significant for me as this woman could have lost all rights to her only child but for my actions stepping in to give her a voice against a violent and abusive perpetrator. This case continues today, and I look forward to continuing to ensure that K.F. retains custody and primary placement of this child.
 
3) I recently represented a severely autistic 37 year old man who is the object of a guardianship and protective placement.
 
During my annual review of his case his guardian told me that he would like to have his right to vote reinstated. The man has been institutionalized his entire life. I met with him and conducted my own evaluation of his ability to comprehend the election process. After seeing his ability to communicate using a physical aid it was clear he was well-informed and capable of making an informed decision in the ballot box, with the use of an aid. I filed a petition on his behalf; we participated in a contested hearing as to his abilities and the court agreed that he was certainly intelligent, informed, and was worthy of regaining this constitutional right that had been removed 20 years earlier. The man and his family were elated that I was able to see past his disability and use the law to regain a cherished constitutional right.
 
Experience in adversary proceedings before administrative bodies:
I represented E. B. in multiple felony forgery and fraud charges. She was an accomplished Nursing Assistant and had begun taking classes to become an R.N. With the felony charges, she had her name added to the "Caregiver Misconduct" registry. We appealed the decision and I negotiated a settlement with the WI Dept. of Families whereby her name would be removed after one year. I also contested a second "caregiver misconduct" registry case for a daycare owner. We went to a contested hearing and won. Her day care is now open and providing care to children today.
 
Describe your non-litigation experience (e.g., arbitration, mediation).
I have participated in ADR [Alternative Dispute Resolution] training through Marquette University (1997 through 1999) and have also recently taken the University of Wisconsin Divorce and Family Mediation Training. I mediate approximately 1 to 2 family law matters every month for the Portage County Family Court Commissioner. The statutes limit us to mediating only custody and placement issues for the county. I have also been retained privately to mediate guardianships and other family matters.
 
Position or involvement in judicial, non-partisan, or partisan political campaign, committee, or organization:
Treasurer, Veronica Isherwood for Portage County District Attorney (when she ran as a Democrat, unsuccessful)
 
Previous appointments and runs for public office:
Portage County Circuit Court, 2016 (lost in general election)
Village of Park Ridge trustee and president, 2012-2018 (appointed and then elected)
Stevens Point Area Public School District, 2014-2020 (won elections)
Portage County clerk of circuit court, 2011-2017 (appointed and then elected)
 
All judicial or non-partisan candidates endorsed in the last ten years:
Susan Happ, Wisconsin attorney general, 2014
Joanne Kloppenburg, Wisconsin Supreme Court, 2011
Rebecca Dallet, Wisconsin Supreme Court, 2018
Jill Karofsky, Wisconsin Supreme Court, 2020
Katrina Shankland, Wisconsin Assembly, various
Julie Lassa, Wisconsin State Senate, various
Paul Piotrowski, Wisconsin State Senate, currently
 
Professional or civic and charitable organizations:
Portage County Bar Association, 1998-present; officer 2013-2016, including as president
Rotary of Greater Portage County, 2012-present, including as president
Community Foundation of Central Wisconsin, 2014-2020, including as president
Mid-State Independent Living Choices Inc., 2012-present, including as director and president
Wisconsin State Bar, Bar Relations committee, 2017-present
Wisconsin Judicare, Inc., director, 2017-present
Friends of Emerson Park, member, 2019-2020
 
Significant pro bono legal work or volunteer service:
As listed … above, I have represented K.F. as a Portage County Legal Aid case since November 2017. I have logged nearly 200 hours of pro bono representation in her matter. (I have also paid for countless documents; certifications and subpoenas in her case, as I know she is unable to pay for these things).
 
Recently, a social worker called me and asked me to represent another young woman with an autistic child in a domestic abuse restraining order hearing to protect her and the child. I asked that the woman see if she qualified for Portage County Legal Aid Society representation and if yes, would handle the restraining order matter. She qualified. There was also an on-going CPS matter and the family court order needed to be modified. We held multiple evidentiary hearings to ensure that she and the child were protected from her abusive former boyfriend. I represented her in a day-long trial in her post-judgment family court matter, as well as the restraining order. We successfully changed custody and placement in the family matter and obtained an injunction which provided the protection my client and her vulnerable child needed.
 
I volunteered at a State Bar of Wisconsin "Wills for Heros" clinic for the Wausau Police Department in 2018. I saw what a terrific program it is and decided to organize a clinic in Portage County with the Bar Association. We held it in 2019 serving 40 police officers. I have attempted to organize a second clinic, however have been unable due to the pandemic.
 
Quotes:
 
Why I want to be a judge -- My greatest passion as a lawyer has been to represent those who might not have a voice in our justice system: the vulnerable child, an intimidated victim, or a senior who can no longer speak. It has been fulfilling to me to represent the State in criminal cases where justice was achieved for a victim; rehabilitation obtained for an addict, or expungement for a deserving teen. In every case, I advocate for the best result possible using the many tools that the justice system offers.
 
I have had a unique and varied legal path. Law was a second career for me, attending Madison while pregnant with my first and second children. In addition to being a lawyer, I have been a stay-at-home mom, a co-parent in a divorce, served as Clerk of Circuit Court and been a long-time school board member. I have been so much more than just a lawyer. Every position: prosecutor, defense attorney, guardian ad litem, Asst. City Attorney, and Clerk of Court has given me a unique perspective and a broader understanding of our complex justice system. It has also given me an opportunity to learn how the systems work and the tools that each area offers.
 
Attending law school was a privilege for me. I was the first person in our family to attend college. I can see the rungs on the ladder that were extended for me. My goal has always been to improve the lives of all I touch and to repay the opportunities that were given to me.
 
In every position I have held, I have worked to uphold our legal institutions by treating all people with respect and dignity. It is vital to understand that the litigants that enter the system might be dealing with one of their worst moments of their life; a divorce, an eviction, or addressing a crime.
 
The integrity of our legal system depends squarely on the integrity and empathy of the judges running those courts. It also relies on the judge appreciating that this case might be the most important moment in this litigant's life. This requires listening, humility, and empathy; qualities that I have always strived to demonstrate.
 
We must also acknowledge that our courts are at a crossroads: we have never had so many pro se litigants; our systems are being scrutinized for its treatment of people of color, and how it interfaces with law enforcement; we are using electronic technology in court hearings that lowers the decorum and perception of the courts. These issues must be addressed. My varied background gives me unique tools to understand and work towards resolution. I embrace the challenges these issues present.
 
My career path has been unique and varied; I have always tried to see the glass half-full, and I have embraced opportunities for improvement. Should I be appointed, I would bring all these life experiences to the bench.
 
Describe which case in the past 25 years by the Wisconsin Supreme Court or U.S. Supreme Court you believe had a significant positive or negative impact on the people of Wisconsin.
As a three-term member of the Stevens Point Board of Education, for me the case that has demonstrated a significant impact to residents of Wisconsin is Davis v Grover 166 Wis. 2nd 501, 480 N.W. 2d 460 (1992).
 
In the late 1980's then Governor Tommy Thompson advocated for a parental choice program to allow the State of Wisconsin to send taxpayer money to private schools to educate children. The first program was the Milwaukee Public Choice Program (MPCP) and was authorized as part of the budget bill in 1989. Actions by Superintendent of Public Instruction, Herbert J. Grover, caused a school parent Lanzetta Davis, and her daughter to challenge. The issues presented to the court were regarding the constitutionality of how the bill was enacted; the uniform district school clause and whether the classification of the bill, applying only to residents of a "first class city" was a violation of the Wisconsin Constitution, Sect. IV, Art. 18.
 
The Supreme Court, by a five to four majority ruled that the process by which the bill was created was constitutional and that the "first class city" classification was likewise constitutional. This despite only being available to "Milwaukee" residents.
 
The Supreme Court found that how the legislation was enacted - as part of the budget bill, to be constitutional. While they discussed the substantive issues of poverty in the City of Milwaukee that brought about the need for reform, the reality is those comments were nothing more than window­dressing for their analysis of whether the bill was a violation of the constitution.
 
Additionally, while they stated a controversial bill should be vigorously debated in both houses of the legislature, only the dissent points out the lack of such a debate in the full senate. The Supreme Court provided a defense of the goals of the program stating reform was necessary due to the "monumentally oppressive poverty problems as found in first class cities...". However, this was nothing more than dicta, as the real issue before them was the process by which the bill was passed - as part of the budget.
 
Once this method of passing school legislation (via the budget) was deemed constitutional, it created a gateway for subsequent legislation which allowed religious schools to receive funding via the choice program in 1994. It also set the stage for the dramatic statewide expansion of school choice throughout Wisconsin in 2011. Today the State spends over $145 million on private school vouchers annually and every dollar is taken from the local public school district.
 
The majority created a precedent which justified this process of enacting controversial legislation. The precedent has affected local school districts across the state since its decision. The result of this decision by the Supreme Court has impacted the delivery of education to generations of Wisconsin schoolchildren.
 
Two or three judges whom I admire and why:
While I have worked with many wonderful judges these three stand out in my personal experience:
 
Hon. Jill Falstad, Circuit Court Branch 1, Marathon County
I worked with Judge Jill Falstad when she was District Attorney for Marathon County. I can state unequivocally that she was my mentor and the person that instilled in me my work ethic. When people state that I am thorough and well-prepared, the credit all goes to Judge Falstad. We co-counseled multiple jury trials in which I learned the benefit of preparation.
 
Additionally, she has always pursued justice with a passion and done "the right thing" even when that meant doing the most difficult thing. We once disagreed on a disposition in a domestic abuse homicide. While we disagreed, she displayed a remarkable sense of compassion and never swayed from seeking justice in the case.
 
When District Attorney Falstad ascended to the bench in Marathon County, I knew she would take that work ethic, her dogged pursuit of justice, and deep compassion with her. While she turned out to be a tough sentencing judge, my clients who appeared in her court were always treated with respect, dignity, and listened to thoughtfully. If I am appointed to the bench I will aspire to be as thorough, as thoughtful, and as compassionate as her.
 
Hon. Gregory Grau: Circuit Court Branch 4, Marathon County
I had the good fortune of trying multiple jury trials in front of Judge Grau when I worked as an Assistant District Attorney in Marathon County. I have chosen Judge Grau because he pushed me to "find the authority" for every decision. I recall my law professors telling us to always look to the statutes. I received the same admonition from Judge Grau asking "what is your authority for that?" countless times. A good judge listens but also demands preparation and a solid footing upon which decisions are to be made. Judge Grau was that judge - demanding the best from those appearing in front of him. He pushed me to reach farther, work harder, and always know the authority for which I made my requests. He was an outstanding role model.
 
Hon. Frederic Fleishauer: Circuit Court Branch 1, Portage County
I appeared before Judge Fleishauer more times than I can count. He was always thoroughly versed in the statutes and case law and an excellent jurist. However, I am listing him here because of my admiration for his leadership in our community. Judge Fleishauer advocated tirelessly for thoughtful problem-solving in the justice system. He was the catalyst for the creation of the Portage County Justice Coalition more than twenty years ago; our pre-trial supervision program for OWI offenders; and a private organization (Justiceworks Ltd.) to provide mentors and other alternative programs in the criminal justice system. He was deeply involved in our community, a true advocate for justice, and embodied the role of leader of the Portage County Justice system.
 
The proper role of a judge:
A Circuit Court Judge is a leader in the county justice system, a role model and moral compass for a community. In the courtroom the judge needs to exhibit decorum but also listen carefully to all parties. Respect for all people in the courtroom is essential.
 
Most people will enter a courtroom only once or twice in their lifetimes. It may be one of the most difficult moments in that person's life. A judge must remember that while day-to-day hearings might become rote and routine, for the person seated in front of them, this might be the most critical moment of their life. A judge must give that interaction the great weight such an encounter deserves.
 
The court must base its rulings on the proper authority, be it statutes or case law. A judge must be prepared and well-versed in the applicable statutes and case law. A Circuit Court judge does not make law, but rather applies existing law to the situation before it, even when the judge may not agree with the applicable law. When a judge rules, they should clearly explain the basis upon which they are relying. A recitation of the relevant facts is essential to understand why the judge ruled the way they did.
 
A Circuit Court judge respects the role of the jury as the finder-of-fact and equally respects the constitutional role of jurors in the justice process.
 
It is important for the judge to be perceived by all as fair and impartial in all matters. When there is a perception that it might not be possible to appear to be fair and impartial, the judge must be prepared to recuse him or herself and allow another court to handle the matter.
 
A judge realizes the power of their words - they can encourage a defendant to improve themselves, speak to divorcing parents about the value of co-parenting and mutual respect, or motivate a litigant toward rehabilitation.
 
The role of the judge in treatment or alternative rehabilitation programs is monumental. The judge can empathize with a defendant, inspire, motivate, or buoy up a relapsed defendant. As a team member for treatment courts, the judge bears the ultimate responsibility when a defendant fails and needs consequences or to be expelled from the program.
 
Outside of the courtroom the judge is a community leader and the face of the county justice system. The judge must be able to turn a blind eye to criticisms for unpopular rulings.
 
The judge's personal life is on display, as well. Actions by the judge and his or her family in the community must be beyond reproach. A judge should consider themselves a role model for good citizenship.
 
Lastly, the role of the judge is to be an ambassador for the justice system. A judge listens, and cares deeply for the integrity of the justice system. A good judge imbues respect in all ways for our constitutional form of government.