|
WJI is taking a look at justice-related bills adopted during the 2019-20 session. Act 162 makes felonies out of various ways of having or watching or recording human sexual contact with other types of animals. Prohibited conduct includes, according to the Legislative Council:
The penalties vary, depending on the act, whether it was a first offense, and whether the animal was injured. The least serious maximum penalty is up to six years in prison and a $10,000 fine; the most serious is up to 25 years in prison and a $100,000 fine. The new law also requires the offender to register as a sex offender. The sentencing court must also prohibit the offender from working with or owning animals for five to 15 years after release from incarceration.
The law was introduced as Senate Bill 139. Its companion bill was Assembly Bill 152. The lead authors of SB 139 were State Senators Andre Jacque (R-DePere) and Fred Risser (D-Madison). The lead sponsors of AB 152 were State Representatives Chuck Wichgers (R-Muskego) and Janel Brandtjen (R-Menomonee Falls).
Gov. Tony Evers signed the bill into law on March 3. Fiscal estimates: No fiscal estimates were filed. Excerpts Testimony for: Jacque – As with other forms of animal abuse, bestiality overlaps significantly with violence perpetrated against humans, including domestic violence, sexual assault, and child abuse. A study of 44,000 adult sex offenders found that prior sexual abuse of animals is the number one behavioral predictor for sexual abuse of a child, and individuals who sexually abuse animals are very frequently violent, predatory sex offenders who share many common traits with pedophiles. A number of websites have been used frequently to facilitate animal sexual abuse, which is why the PAW Act makes it illegal to advertise, offer, sell, transfer or purchase an animal with the intent for it to be used for sexual contact, or to photograph or film a person engaged in sexual contact with an animal, or to possess or distribute such materials.... Wisconsin Federated Humane Societies – As compassionate humane beings, we would like to think that animal sex abuse occurs rarely in our society. Unfortunately, this crime is on the rise as animal sexual abusers easily network on the internet and through social media.... Testimony against: None Registering for the bill: Badger State Sheriffs' Association, The Humane Society of the United States, League of Humane Voters-Wisconsin, Wisconsin Companion Animal Network, Wisconsin Federated Humane Societies., Wisconsin Puppy Mill Project, Wisconsin Sheriffs and Deputy Sheriffs Association, Wisconsin State Horse Council, Wisconsin Veterinary Medical Association Registering against the bill: No one
0 Comments
WJI is taking a look at justice-related bills adopted during the 2019-20 session. 2019 Act 161 created a law that specifically criminalized money laundering. Previously, offenses that would be treated as money laundering under federal law were charged under state law as crimes of theft or receiving stolen property. The new law prohibits knowingly getting proceeds that the receiver knows are derived from unlawful activity or conducting a transaction involving proceeds that are derived from unlawful activity. (Yes, buying a drink with money your buddy won in the office pool is a crime if you knew that money came from illegal gambling!) The new law also prohibits involvement in or financing of moving or transferring proceeds while knowing that the proceeds were derived from illegal activity; making available funds while aware that they will be used for committing or aiding illegal activity; and conducting a transaction involving proceeds received through an illegal activity and knowing that the transaction is designed to avoid a reporting requirement under federal law or to conceal the ownership, control, location, or source of the illicit proceeds. The law creates several levels of penalties, depending value of the proceeds involved. If the value is $2,500 or less, the crime is punishable by up to nine months in jail and a $10,000 fine. For greater values, the maximum penalties are:
The law was introduced as Senate Bill 368. Its companion bill was Assembly Bill 350. The lead authors of SB 767 were State Senators Scott Fitzgerald (R-Juneau) and Dan Feyen (R-Fond du Lac). The lead sponsors of AB 350 were State Representatives Rob Hutton (R-Brookfield) and Janel Brandtjen (R-Menomonee Falls).
Gov. Tony Evers signed the bill into law on March 4. Fiscal estimates: No fiscal estimates were filed. Excerpts Testimony for: Hutton – Everyone knows someone who has been a victim of fraud, and yet law enforcement and prosecutors have not had the appropriate tools to stop it. While federal laws prohibit money laundering, there is no money laundering statue in Wisconsin. Practically, this means that unless a criminal engages in over $200,000 worth of financial crimes, there is little Wisconsin law enforcement can do to prosecute these crimes. Testimony against: None Registering for the bill: Wisconsin Bankers Association Registering against the bill: No organization or individual registered against the bill. Registering "other" position on the bill: NAIOP Wisconsin (Commercial Real Estate Development Association), Wisconsin Realtors Association. WJI is taking a look at justice-related bills adopted during the 2019-20 session. Act 144 made mail theft its own crime. Mail theft is defined as taking a letter, postcard, or package from a home or other building. Taking fewer than 10 piece of mail now is a misdemeanor punishable by up to nine months in jail and a $10,000 fine; stealing 10 to 30 pieces of mail is a felony punishable by up to 3½ years in prison and a $10,000 fine, and stealing 30 or more pieces of mail is punishable by up to six years in prison and a $10,000 fine. That last penalty also applies if the stolen mail belongs to an at-risk adult. The law was introduced as Assembly Bill 734. The companion bill was Senate Bill 656. The lead authors of AB 734 were Rob Hutton (R-Brookfield) and Scott Allen (R-Waukesha). The lead sponsors of SB 656 were David Craig (R-Big Bend) and Alberta Darling (R-River Hills). The Assembly adopted the bill, 84-13. All the Republicans supported the bill, as did 21 Democrats. The Senate adopted the bill without dissent. Gov. Tony Evers signed it into law on March 3. Fiscal estimates: No fiscal estimates were filed.
Excerpts
Testimony for: Hutton – More shoppers than ever before are skipping the lines at brick and mortar stores instead choosing to shop from the convenience of their homes.... Unfortunately, this trend has also led to the rise of so-called "porch pirates"-thieves who steal delivered packages from a person's doorstep. According to a recent study, as many as one in four people have had a package stolen from their residence. Our laws should keep up with the shift in consumer trends and the resulting criminal trends. Under current law, it is illegal to steal mail or any other item. However, while the act of theft is in current statute, the act of stealing multiple items from multiple residences cannot be considered under the same charge. Repeat criminals are often released after paying a small court fee because the value of the packages stolen falls below the threshold of more serious theft offenses. This bill will create a penalty for individuals who steal packages from porches and other locations near a residence. It also allows for multiple package thefts to be charged as one crime if they occur as a course of action. It further clarifies that theft of any package or piece of mail delivered by any carrier to any building would be charged as mail theft. John Milotzky, Wauwatosa Police Department – If you order a package from a retailer and it is stolen from your porch, you’ll be inconvenienced by having to report the theft and wait for a replacement product. Now imagine that it’s not just a replaceable object that is stolen, but that it’s your identity or your banking information. What the media didn’t necessarily show in their “porch pirate” stories are the numerous crimes that occur following the theft of mail – crimes that can have a long lasting impact on the victims…. Once in possession of a victim’s checks, suspects can change the payee and cash the check, which is a one-time crime. But we also see them use victim’s checks to create counterfeit checks using the same routing and account information…. Testimony against: None Registering for the bill: Wisconsin Chiefs of Police Association, Wisconsin Independent Businesses Inc. Registering against the bill: No one. WJI is taking a look at justice-related bills adopted during the 2019-20 session. 2019 Act 112 increases the penalty for intimidating a witness when the witness is a victim of domestic abuse. Intimidating a witness, except when there are aggravating circumstances, is a misdemeanor carrying a maximum penalty of nine months in jail and a $10,000 fine. The bill makes intimidating a domestic violence victim punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a $25,000 fine. The law was introduced as Assembly Bill 804. Its companion bill was SenateBill 767. The lead authors of AB 804 were State Representatives Daniel Knodl (R-Germantown) and Joe Sanfelippo (R-New Berlin). The lead sponsors of SB 767 were State Senators Alberta Darling (R-River Hills) and Andre Jacques (R-DePere). The measure passed the Assembly on a 67-32 vote, generally along party lines. Four Democrats joined all Republicans in voting for the measure. The four were Steve Doyle (D-Onalaska), Beth Meyers (D-Bayfield), Nick Milroy (D-South Range), and Robyn Vining (D-Wauwatosa). The Senate also approved the measure with only Senators Mark Miller (D-Monona) and Lena Taylor (D-Milwaukee) opposing it. Gov. Tony Evers signed it into law on Feb. 28,2020. Fiscal estimates: No fiscal estimates were filed. Excerpts Testimony for: Knodl and Darling - Prosecutors and law enforcement have highlighted the growing problem of witness intimidation in Wisconsin. Milwaukee, in particular, has been hard hit, with a recent Journal-Sentinel investigation identifying that 23% of charged homicide cases were impacted by documented instances of witnesses failing to appear in court to testify. Despite Milwaukee being a national leader in proactive actions to prevent witness intimidation, it remains a problem in the city and throughout the state. Increasing protections for crime victims and witnesses is important, particularly in cases of domestic abuse. We should be making it harder for criminals to continue terrorizing our communities, not easier. This legislation moves us in the right direction.
Testimony against:
State Public Defender’s Office - As with most penalty enhancers or mandatory minimum sentences, evidence does not demonstrate that they serve as an effective deterrent. The bill is unlike other laws that increase the penalty for witness intimidation because it is based on the underlying crime, not the degree or type of intimidation involved, SPD said. This could present the hypothetical scenario that intimidation of a witness in a domestic abuse crime is treated more severely that intimidation of a witness in a homicide even if the type of intimidation employed is similar. End Domestic Abuse Wisconsin – The intent of this legislation is laudable, and we appreciate and share lawmakers' goal of supporting survivors. However, End Abuse opposes the idea that increased sentencing is the solution to ending domestic violence. Criminalization has been the primary response to domestic abuse in the U.S. for 30 years, and the results are disappointing. The failure of the criminal legal system to seriously decrease neither incidence nor the severity of intimate partner violence highlights the limits of a one-dimensional approach to a multi-dimensional problem. Increasing penalties will do very little to protect survivors of violence.... Imagine the impact this legislation would have on a victim, assumed to be an abuser, entering the criminal legal system. Requiring that victim intimidation in domestic violence cases is charged as a felony, rather than looking at incidents on a case by case basis, removes judicial discretion and the exploration of other remedies or appropriate charges. Intimate partner violence (IPV) has overlapping economic, community, public health, and human rights facets. Viewing intimate partner violence through each of these frames opens new avenues for addressing the problem. IPV will continue unabated if policymakers continue to focus on punishment and fail to focus on economic inequality and instability. The evidence is clear that IPV is more prevalent and more severe in the context of economic distress. Poor people, particularly poor women, are more vulnerable to IPV and few policy dollars are allocated to programs that would directly reduce that risk. Victims and advocates talk frequently about lack of access to legal aid, underfunding of county victim witness units, chronically overworked and underpaid DAs and public defenders, restrictions on access to Medicaid and other lifesaving benefits, sparse or nonexistent affordable housing in their area, and an insufficient focus on interpersonal violence in our education system. These are just a handful of resources that can, when made accessible and adequately funded, make a difference. Individuals who receive assistance in securing material resources are significantly less likely to experience psychological and physical abuse after leaving shelter and report greater improvements in their quality of life. Therefore, economic policy may have more potential to seriously decrease IPV than other policy interventions. Let us not forget that incarceration is expensive. We're talking about spending a considerable amount of taxpayer dollars, over 10 years, to house an individual who has intimidated a victim. Imagine if we provided supportive housing for that victim instead. What would it look like if we used those funds to provide survivors with the support they need to live a life free from violence? What if we listened to their voices? Survivors across the state are not telling us that we need to be tougher in sentencing. They're telling us that they need affordable housing and childcare. They're telling us that their partners need help. They're telling us that incarceration is not justice. Registering for the bill: Badger State Sheriff's Association, Wisconsin Chiefs of Police Association Inc., Wisconsin Sheriffs and Deputy Sheriffs Association. Registering against the bill: City of Milwaukee, End Domestic Violence: the Wisconsin Coalition Against Domestic Violence, Wisconsin District Attorneys Association, Wisconsin Justice Initiative Inc. WJI is taking a look at justice-related bills adopted during the 2019-20 session. Act 132 made swatting a felony. Swatting is reporting false information to law enforcement that is intended to spur, or could actually spur, a response from a specialized tactical team. Previously, some false emergency reports were misdemeanors or punishable by fines, though making a bomb threat and or threatening to release a harmful substance were felonies. Under the new law, swatting by itself is now punishable by up to 3 ½ years in prison and a $10,000 fine. If swatting results in bodily harm, the maximum penalty is up to six years in prison and a $10,000 fine. If the swatting results in great bodily harm, the offender is subject to upto 15 years in prison and a $15,000 fine. The law was introduced as Assembly Bill 454. Its companion bill was Senate Bill 363. The lead authors of AB 454 were Tyler Vorpagel (R-Plymouth) and Cindi Duchow (R-Town of Delafield). The lead sponsors of SB 363 were Robert Cowles (R-Green Bay) and Van Wanggaard (R-Racine). The bill passed without opposition. Gov. Tony Evers signed it into law on March 3. Fiscal estimates: No fiscal estimates were filed.
Excerpts
Duchow – What began as a prank has since proven to create incredibly dangerous and even deadly situations. Some may recall in late December 2017 when a man in California falsely reported a hostage situation at a home in Wichita, Kansas that resulted in the death of an innocent father who had no idea why police had surrounded his home. Wisconsin is not immune to this as dozens of swatting incidents have been reported within the last few years in communities all across the state including Hartland, Waupaca, Madison, Sun Prairie, Fond du Lac, Appleton, Janesville, Greenfield, and Marinette County. Each of these instances wasted an incredible amount of resources and put innocent lives at risk as law enforcement officers, emergency personnel, and even full SWAT teams were mobilized to a location where no threat existed. Cowles – A good example of how swatting can harm a community occurred just last year in Dodge County. The Dodge County 911 Center received a call from a man who said he shot a man and taken others hostage in a house in the Highway 151 and Forest Road area between Beaver Dam and Columbus. The SWAT team arrived on the scene and began to enter the residence with the intent to free the hostages. Other police responding shut down the highway for over an hour. The SWAT team entered the residence and immediately discovered no hostage situation existed and deemed it as a swatting call as defined in the bill. As the investigation was wrapping up, Dodge County received a call for an ice rescue on Fox Lake. Sheriff Dale Schmidt told reporters, "Had our deputies still been tied up on the swatting call, it is quite possible our deputies would not have been able to respond as quickly to that incident, and lives could have been put further in jeopardy." Other more recent swatting events have happened in Wisconsin as well. In April of this year, Hartland Police responded to a call from a man who claimed he had just killed his mother and was going to hurt himself. The address the SW AT team was sent to was a house across the street from Hartland Elementary South. The school was put on lockdown and the SW AT team surrounded the residence with riot shields and heavy weaponry until the resident emerged at which point the police determined no emergency existed. Another incident occurred in July of this year, when the Dane County 911 center got a call from someone claiming to be the mother of a woman who had a gun and was threatening suicide in the bathroom of her condominium. Police swarmed and evacuated the condominium, eventually entering the residence and found nobody to be present. Registering for the bill: Wisconsin Chiefs of Police Association, Wisconsin EMS Association, and Wisconsin Professional Police Association. Registering against the bill: League of Women Voters of Wisconsin Inc., with the comment, LWVWI supports a primary reliance on alternatives to incarceration. WJI is taking a look at justice-related bills adopted during the 2019-20 session. 2019 Act 111 makes possession of any unauthorized item - even if it is otherwise legal - by a person incarcerated in a jail or prison a felony punishable by up to 3 ½ years in prison and a $10,000 fine. The law was introduced as Senate Bill 70. Its companion bill was Assembly Bill 63. The lead authors of SB 70 were State Senators Andre Jacque (R-DePere) and Howard L. Marklein (R-Spring Green). The lead sponsors of AB 63 were State Representatives Ron Tusler (R-Harrison) and James Edming (R-Glen Flora). Gov. Tony Evers signed it into law on Feb. 28,2020. Fiscal estimates: No fiscal estimates were filed.
Excerpts
Testimony for: Jacque – Inmates sometimes attempt to conceal contraband in an attempt to sneak it into the facility while being booked into jail. Depending on the contraband it may or may not be a crime. Illegal drugs or an item snuck in and given to another person currently constitutes a crime, and the person can be charged. However, if the person tries to sneak something in that is not illegal to possess and keeps it for themselves at the time they are caught with it, it cannot be prosecuted beyond a rules violation, whether that item might be a phone that could facilitate other crimes, something that can be fashioned into a weapon or contain flammable liquid, or even a handcuff key, which is not illegal to possess and not a crime. These items are serious problems in a correctional setting. The idea for Senate Bill 70 came from corrections and law enforcement officers in Northeast Wisconsin, including those here to testify today. Tusler – Unfortunately, §302.095 leaves the proverbial jailhouse door open to smuggle in items that are not already illegal to possess, for example a handcuff key, pen, or paperclip, for personal use; this loophole is being exploited and must be closed to ensure the safety of our law enforcement and corrections personnel and other inmates. While these legally-possessable items are usually found and confiscated during booking as contrary to jail or prison policy, there is no consequence for attempting to outsmart facility personnel. Testimony against: None Registering for the bill: AFSCME International Union, Badger State Sheriff’s Association, Washington County, Wisconsin Counties Association, Wisconsin County Police Association, Wisconsin Sheriff’s and Deputy Sheriffs Association Registering against the bill: No one Registering as “other”: No one WJI is taking a look at justice-related bills adopted during the 2019-20 session. 2019 Act 106 – This act increases incarceration time for fifth or sixth offense drunk driving from six months to 18 months. The new law, however, allows a judge to impose a shorter sentence if the judge finds that a shorter sentence is in the interests of the community and that the community will not be harmed. The judge must also state on the record the reasons for those findings. The law was introduced as Senate Bill 6. The companion bill was Assembly Bill 16. The lead authors of SB 6 were Senators Alberta Darling (R-River Hills) and Kathleen Bernier (R-Chippewa Falls). The lead co-sponsors were State Representatives Jim Ott (R-Mequon) and Cody Horlacher (R-Mukwonago). The bill was approved in the Assembly by an 88-10 roll call vote. Voting against it were Representatives Jill Billings (D-LaCrosse), Jonathan Brostoff (D-Milwaukee), Dave Considine (D-Baraboo), David Crowley (D-Milwaukee), Jodi Emerson (D-Eau Claire), Evan Goyke (D-Milwaukee), Beth Meyers (D-Bayfield), Greta Neubauer (D-Racine), Daniel Riemer (D-Milwaukee) and Mark Spreitzer (D-Beloit). State Rep. Travis Tranel (R-Cuba City) either did not vote or was not present. The Senate approved the bill without a roll call. Gov. Evers signed the new law Feb. 28, 2020. Fiscal estimates: Department of Corrections – $13,608,100 annually. On average, in the years 2016-2018, 438 people convicted of fifth- or sixth-offense drunk driving were placed on probation, though it is not known how many were ordered to serve jail time as a condition of their sentences. Another 343 were sentenced to prison, for an average of 20 months each. The department's calculation assumes that all 438 people placed on probation would instead be sentenced to 18 months in prison, and the 343 sentenced to prison would be sentenced to 18 months. The estimate takes into account the 8% annual decline in conviction rates for those crimes the state experienced from 2013 to 2017. The annual cost estimate includes funding for new substance abuse programming and contracted jail beds, which the department anticipates using because state prisons are crowded beyond capacity. The estimate does not include any estimates for community supervision costs related to the bill. Courts – Undetermined.
District Attorneys – Undetermined. In 2017, there were 404 convictions for OWI fifth offense and 177 convictions for OWI sixth offense.
Responsive district attorneys generally cited the belief that any increase in mandatory minimums in proposed legislation decreases the District Attorneys ability to resolve cases with plea agreements, reduces the Judge's discretion at sentencing and increases the likelihood that the defendant will contest his/her guilt at trial or via a pre-trial motion. Motion practice and jury trials consume significantly more prosecutorial resources and time than resolving matters via plea agreement. The number of additional cases that would be calendared for litigation rather than plea as a result of this legislation is unknown. Responsive district attorneys further note that this change would also affect the ability to utilize treatment courts for fifth- and sixth-offense offenders which have borne fruit in reducing drunk driving recidivism. Department of Justice – An additional assistant attorney general likely would be needed to handle increased appeals. Department of Transportation – None. State Public Defender's Office – May be a slight cost increase because of additional trials. Excerpts Testimony for: Darling – It is my hope Senate Bill 6 will deter individuals from getting behind the wheel intoxicated by increasing the mandatory minimum to 18 months in prison. With the expansion of treatment and diversion programs and other alternatives, it is my hope that Senate Bill 6 will never have to be used. Ott – Those who chronically commit OWI are a menace on the roads, and a stiffer mandatory minimum would send a strong message that we will not tolerate this behavior, and keep chronic offenders off the road for a longer period of time. Testimony against: None. Registering for the bill: AAA Wisconsin, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, Wisconsin Chiefs of Police Association. Registering against the bill: No one. Registering as "other" position: Tavern League of Wisconsin, Wisconsin Professional Police Association. WJI is taking a look at justice-related bills adopted during the 2019-20 session. 2019 Act 97 – This act makes battery to a nurse or to a person working under the supervision of a nurse a Class H felony rather than a misdemeanor, as was previously the case. The misdemeanor was punishable by up to nine months in jail and a fine of up to $10,000. The felony is punishable by up to six years in prison and a fine of $10,000 or both. It previously was a felony to commit battery against an emergency medical care provider. Act 97 expands that Class H felony to cover battery against any health care provider who works in a hospital. "Hospital" has a broad definition under the act and includes any facility devoted to treatment of and medical care for three or more nonrelated individuals. The law was introduced as Senate Bill 163. The companion bill was Assembly Bill 175. The lead authors of SB 163 were Senators Dale Kooyenga (R-Brookfield) and Tim Carpenter (D-Milwaukee). The lead co-sponsors were State Representatives Gae Magnafici (R-Dresser) and Cindi Duchow (R-Delafield). An amendment to exempt some people with mental illness or brain damage, degenerative brain disorder, or developmental disability from the harsher penalties was defeated in the Assembly along a party line vote. State Reps. Jonathan Brostrom (D-Milwaukee) and Rob Stafsholt (R-New Richmond) voted against the bill. Gov. Evers signed the new law Feb. 5, 2020. Fiscal estimates: District attorneys, Department of Corrections, Department of Justice and State Public Defender's Office all said they could not determine how much the new law would cost. Excerpts Testimony for: Kooyenga – Workplace violence should not be a part of the job for a nurse. However, the reality we have all seen depicted in the news shows otherwise and unfortunately, earlier this year, a nurse was beaten to death at an area healthcare facility. Workplace violence against nurses can be found in just about every type of practice setting – hospitals, clinics, home care, psychiatric, long term care and correctional health settings. .
Wisconsin Nurses Association – Instances of workplace violence against nurses have gone beyond the emergency room. Incidents are regularly taking place on other units of hospitals, same day surgery, ambulatory care, primary care, long term care, home care, hospice, and employer based clinics.
According to a report published by the American Nurses Association one in four nurses are assaulted while on the job. This data is similar to WNA's research. It is important to note that one common theme in all of these reports is that the majority of nurses did not report the incident. Reasons for not reporting include the belief that assaults are part of the job and/or the belief that their report will not be investigated and acted upon. This is why workplace violence against nurses is also referred to as the "Silent Epidemic." Froedtert Health – There are a number of factors that contribute to the higher risk in a healthcare environment. Healthcare facilities are generally widely accessible to the general public and providers are committed to caring for all, both through their professional and ethical responsibilities to "do no harm" and through various laws and regulations....Patients often feel sick and are often frightened and facing uncertainty. Some are in significant pain. Others are under the influence of medications or illicit drugs, have a history of violence, or have a medical condition that impacts their decision-making and behavior. Family members and visitors can feel extreme stress, concern and anger when a loved one is facing a serious health issue. All of these factors can contribute to inappropriate acts of violence....We support this legislative effort to improve safety and discourage violence through a penalty enhancer. Other testimony: Disability Rights Wisconsin – We respect the concerns of the bill's authors regarding addressing workplace violence against nurses. However, after reviewing the potential impact of the bill on people with disabilities, we are concerned that the bill may have unintended consequences and would not have changed the tragic incident that this proposal is responding to. AB 175/ SB 163 has been described as addressing "bodily harm to a nurse" but the actual scope is far broader. The penalty enhancer included in this bill would also be applicable to situations involving "an individual working under the supervision of an RN or LPN." This is very expansive and would include personal care workers, Certified Nursing Assistants, and other paraprofessionals who work in a wide range of community settings including private homes and apartments, group homes and schools, as well as traditional healthcare settings. We are also concerned that AB 175/ SB 163 could potentially criminalize actions by some people with disabilities that are a manifestation of their disability. This concern is particularly acute because of the expansive nature of the proposal and its applicability to large numbers of paraprofessionals who provide care to people with disabilities. Certain types of disabilities such as traumatic brain injury, dementia, autism, or mental illness, may in some cases manifest challenging behaviors, especially when an individual is in crisis. Unfortunately, on occasion these behaviors result in bodily harm to a caregiver. Under this bill a person with a disability could be charged with a Class H felony. While we acknowledge that intent is an element, that does not guarantee that a person with a disability will not be charged or convicted.... Registering for the bill AFSCME International Union, Aurora Health Care Inc., Coalition of Wisconsin Aging Groups, Froedtert Health, LeadingAge Wisconsin, Medical College of Wisconsin, Wisconsin Academy of Physician Assistants, Wisconsin Association of School Nurses, Wisconsin Nurses Association, Wisconsin Professional Police Association. Registering against the bill No one Registering for "Other" position Alzheimer's Association Comment: We have concerns about the broad scope of this legislation; the term "intentional" can be interpreted subjectively. People with Alzheimer's or dementia, who may be experiencing a crisis situation, could potentially be charged with a Class H felony. Ascension Wisconsin (supported bill with an expansion that was eventually adopted). Disability Rights Wisconsin (see testimony above). Greater Wisconsin Agency on Aging Resources Comment: Concern-This bill could have unintended consequences as some illnesses/disabilities (dementia, traumatic brain injury, dementia, mental illness, etc) can manifest in behaviors that could subject individuals to being charged with a Class H felony. League of Women Voters of Wisconsin Inc. Comment: We could support this bill if amended to include all health personnel and to exempt patients determined to have certain behavioral disabilities, based on evidence-based standards. Pharmacy Society of Wisconsin (supported bill with an expansion that was eventually adopted). Wisconisn Academy of Physician Assistants (supported bill with an expansion that was eventually adopted). Wisconsin Coalition of Independent Living Centers Inc. Comment: This may have unintended consequences for some people's behavior who have dementia, autism, some mental illnesses and result in them having a felony. Wisconsin Hospital Association (supported bill with an expansion that was eventually adopted) WJI is taking a look at justice-related bills adopted during the 2019-20 session.
2019 Act 41 – The state generally required a license to work as a massage therapist or bodywork therapy, to describe oneself as a massage therapist, bodywork therapist, masseur or masseuse, or to use titles related to massage therapy or bodywork therapy. Violations were punishable by forfeitures of not more than $1,000 for each violation. Act 41 prohibits a person from hiring a person to perform massage services anyone who is not properly licensed or is exempt from the license requirement. The law also authorizes municipalities to enforce local ordinances that prohibit the provision of massage therapy or bodywork therapy by unlicensed individuals and that prohibit unlicensed individuals from calling themselves massage therapists or bodywork therapists. The penalty for violating the state law was increased to a criminal fine of $1,000, up to 90 days in jail, or both. Municipalities can impose forfeitures of up to $1,000 for each ordinance violation and the board that licenses massage therapists can assess a civil forfeiture of up to $1,000 for each violation of the state law, or may issue a reprimand, a license revocation, a license suspension, or can refuse to issue a license. The law was introduced as AB 143; its companion Senate bill was SB 133. The lead authors of the bill were State Rep. Joe Sanfelippo (R-New Berlin) and Rep. Rob Hutton (R-Brookfield). Lead co-sponsors were State Senators Dale Kooyenga (R-Brookfield) and Scott Fitzgerald (R-Juneau). It was signed by Gov. Tony Evers on Nov. 21, 2019. Fiscal estimate: Department of Safety and Professional Services – DSPS does not have sufficient information available to determine what fiscal impact this would have on local governments. Testimony for Sanfelippo – Police in West Allis and Waukesha have uncovered prostitution and human trafficking occurring in multiple massage therapy businesses in their cities. Unfortunately, these have not been the only areas in Wisconsin where such illicit activities have taken place. Another recent story indicates that a New Berlin massage therapy business owner was keeping a place of prostitution and could face up to six years in prison. There have also been incidents reported in Greenfield and Franklin, as well as in other communities throughout the state.... The vast majority of businesses that offer massage therapy services are professional, operate with the greatest of integrity, and follow the law. Unfortunately, a few bad actors involved in human trafficking are tarnishing the entire industry. Current statutes are unclear and leave very limited recourse for our local communities to take swift action in the event that an unscrupulous operation is discovered. A fter City of West Allis officials contacted our office asking for help, we worked with the Wisconsin Department of Safety and Professional Services to come up with a plan that would empower local governments to take enforcement actions while still maintaining the current state level licensure model. Testimony against None. Registering for the bill American Massage Therapy Association, Wisconsin Chapter; League of Wisconsin Municipalities; and Wisconsin Chiefs of Police Association Inc. Registering against the bill No one. WJI is taking a look at justice-related bills adopted during the 2019-20 session. 2019 Act 33 – Expands the activities for which a person can be prosecuted on felony charges related to trespassing or damaging utility property. Prior to adoption of this law, damaging another's property without consent of the owner was generally a misdemeanor punishable by 9 months in jail, a fine of up to $10,000, or both. The same actions became a felony punishable by up to six years in prison and a $10,000 fine if the property was owned by an energy provider and the person caused or intended to cause significant disruption to operations. The law said energy provider property had to be part of an electric generation, distribution, or transmission system or part of a natural gas distribution system. The new law expands the penalty to cover damage to property owned, leased, or operated by water utilities; water production cooperatives, and companies that run gas, oil, petroleum, refined petroleum product, renewable fuel, water, or chemical generation, storage transportation, or delivery system. Trespassing offenses were treated similarly. In most instances, before Act 33, trespassing was civil violation punishable by a fine of up to $1,000. Trespassing on energy provider property, however, carried the safe felony sanctions as damaging a provider's property. This section of the bill also expanded the types of properties where trespassing is a felony to include those also included in the damage-to-property provisions. Exemptions to the penalties were included for monitoring compliance statutory requirements, taking part in otherwise legal picketing or protests that arise out of labor disputes, taking part in legal union organizing activities, and exercising legal free speech and or assembly. The law was introduced as AB 426; its companion Senate bill was SB 386. It was signed by Gov. Tony Evers on Nov. 20, 2019. Fiscal Estimates No fiscal estimates were filed. Excerpts Testimony for: Rep. David Steffen (R - Green Bay) – Critical infrastructure is a term used by the government to describe assets that are essential for the functioning of a society and economy. Most commonly associated with the term are facilities for: shelter, agriculture, water supply, public health, transportation, security services, electricity generation, transmission and distribution (ie. Natural gas, fuel oil, coal, nuclear power) and telecommunication. In recent years, critical infrastructure sites throughout the Midwest have been the recipients of worker harassment and millions of dollars of vandalism and damage. Acts such as these do not only negatively affect the property being damaged but is also putting nearby communities and environment as risk. Sen. Van H. Wanggaard (R-Racine) – As you know, our power grid and related infrastructure is a target that can be damaged and/or sabotaged. A single person could create a problem that could disrupt energy services for hundreds of thousands of people. This is danger to our economy and our safety. We saw this happen earlier this year in Madison with the MG&E fire. I know the MG&E fire was an accident, but you can see the impact the accident caused. Now imagine, the impact ifthat fire was intentional. The damage could have been far greater and widespread. American Chemistry Council, American Petroleum Institute, Construction Business Group, International Union of Operating Engineers Local 139, Mechanical Contractors Association of Wisconsin, Metropolitan Milwaukee Association of Commerce, Midwest Food Products Association, Plumbing and Mechanical Contractors Association of Milwaukee and Southeastern Wisconsin, Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractors' Association of Milwaukee, U.S. Venture, Wisconsin Building Trades Council, Wisconsin Farm Bureau Federation, Wisconsin Grocers Association, Wisconsin Independent Businesses, Wisconsin Independent Businesses Agri-Business Coalition, Wisconsin Industrial Energy Group, Wisconsin Laborers District Council, Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, Wisconsin Paper Council, Wisconsin Pipe Trades, Wisconsin Propane Gas Association, Wisconsin Restaurant Association, Wisconsin Rural Water Association, Wisconsin Transportation Builders Association, Wisconsin Underground Contractors Association, Wisconsin Utilities Association – In recent years, critical infrastructure worksites in the Midwest have seen millions of dollars of construction equipment set on fire, hydraulic fluid leaked onto the ground due to vandalism, intimidation of labor on worksites, and individuals using force to break into facilities and unsafely turn off this critical infrastructure. Unfortunately, those causing this damage and disruption often either do not fully understand the harm they cause or simply don't care. Workers - usually skilled, union tradesmen and tradeswomen - are increasingly feeling unsafe and are seeing their equipment and even their own personal property being damaged. Attempts to improperly turn off or sabotage critical infrastructure is also putting our communities and environment at risk, and, in some cases, putting the lives of those doing the vandalism in jeopardy. To address these serious and growing concerns, the Worker Safety and Energy Security Act adds petroleum, renewable fuel, chemical and water infrastructure to the existing criminal statute protecting our critical infrastructure from trespassing and damage, giving these types of critical infrastructure the same protections as electric and natural gas infrastructure. Nothing in this legislation impacts first amendment rights to organize, protest or picket, and to make that clear language has been included to ensure this legislation does not violate those rights.  Testimony against:
ACLU of Wisconsin – We understand that there is a difference between exercising one’s First Amendment right to assemble and breaking the law. Legislators must recognize, however, that the Constitution firmly protects protests even when – and especially when – they stir anger, question preconceptions, challenge government policy, and induce dissatisfaction with the status quo. The First Amendment safeguards protesters’ rights to awaken passions, to make the public aware of their positions and opinions. America’s robust tradition of free speech allows us all to effect change by making our voices heard. This is crucial to ensuring that the government remains responsive to the will of the people; it is what sets our country apart and is the reason it must be carefully and consistently protected.... This expanded definition sends a message to protesters, who are often members of Native tribes and the organizations that support them, that the government is watching them and wants them to stop vigorously protesting the impending damage to their lands, homes, and livelihoods. The bill also will create additional uncertainty regarding which “energy providers” are covered by the prohibition. The existing law has significant problems that would be greatly exacerbated by expanding the entities covered. What does it mean to intend to substantially interrupt or impair any service? If a person is part of a human chain blocking the access road for a delivery truck as an act of civil disobedience, could they become a felon? National Lawyers' Guild-Madison Chapter - The justification for this legislation, “worker safety” is a smokescreen for companies like Enbridge and Husky Oil, which have already polluted Wisconsin lands and waters and brought death and injury to workers and residents near their facilities across the U.S. Enbridge is responsible for at least two fatalities from exploding gas pipelines in the U.S. and Husky Oil’s refinery explosion in Superior in April 2016 injured workers and caused a mass evacuation in the city. Wisconsin legislators have stripped workers of collective bargaining rights, unemployment compensation and other protections over the last eight years, so expressions of concern for their wellbeing ring a bit hollow..... Leased property, which is included in the bill, usually refers to privately owned property that the pipeline company arranged to lease voluntarily or obtained through eminent domain, which was historically only used by public agencies. Leased property is often not marked consistently and oil and gas pipelines are buried underground, so a person might not know where it is. Lessees may not have the legal authority to prohibit others from entering property that is not exclusively used by them, in fact the expired easement Enbridge had in the national forest expressly allowed people to travel through the easement for hunting, gathering and recreation. The “critical infrastructure” bills that have proliferated in states since 2016 threaten civil liberties and public oversight of pipeline operations, which frequently violate the law and employ militarized police to intimidate activists. Glory Adams: This is a bill that was written by ALEC and forwarded by corporate entities (eg. Enbridge). It is designed to give energy corporations (including pipelines) extraordinary protections at the expense of citizens. It allows an energy company to call law enforcement and demand arrests and charges against a citizen. There have been almost no incidents of vandalism perpetuated by protestors in the state of Wisconsin. However, Enbridge has operated without permits which did result in two protestors being charged. No employees were injured by protestors. Enbridge is currently being sued by the Bad River Reservation for operating illegally on the reservation since 2013. It is clearly not citizens that need extraordinary charges brought against them, but the corporation committing illegal acts. The real problem between protestors and energy servers is the lack of empowerment given to citizens. There is virtually nothing a citizen can do to stop the use of eminent domain, destruction of the environment, and loss of property values. Trying to do so means hiring high priced lawyers for multiple court appearances and endless paperwork. Corporations like Enbridge are quick to say they provide energy for Wisconsin. They do not. Their pipelines simply run through the state. This bill is over-kill. There is no justifiable reason to have it in the state of Wisconsin. There are already laws regarding trespassing and vandalism. This bill also has taxpayers paying for the protection of an energy server. That is a misuse of taxpayer money. Justin Novotney: We will never forgive you. Registering for the bill: The American Chemistry Council, American Petroleum Institute, BNSF Railway, Construction Business Group, Cooperative Network, EDP Renewables, International Union of Operating Engineers Local #139, Mechanical Contractors Association of Wisconsin, Metropolitan Milwaukee Association of Commerce, North Central States Regional Council of Carpenters, Plumbing and Mechanical Contractors Association of Milwaukee and Southeastern Wisconsin, Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractors' Association of Milwaukee, Waukesha County Business Alliance, Wisconsin Central Ltd., Wisconsin Farm Bureau Federation, Wisconsin Independent Businesses, Wisconsin Industrial Energy Group, Wisconsin Laborers District Council, Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, Wisconsin Paper Council, Wisconsin Pipe Trades Association, Wisconsin Railroad Association, Wisconsin State AFL-CIO, Wisconsin Transportation Builders Association, Wisconsin Utilities Association. Registering against the bill: ACLU of Wisconsin, Ho-Chunk Nation, League of Women Voters of Wisconsin Inc., Midwest Environmental Advocates, Sierra Club – John Muir Chapter, Wisconsin Democracy Campaign. The main authors of the bill were Steffen and State Rep. Jason Fields (D-Milwaukee). The lead cosponsors were Wanggaard and Sen. Janet Bewley (D-Mason). Vote: Reps. Jonathan Brostroff (D-Milwaukee), Nick Milroy (D-South Range), Tod Ohnstad (D-Kenosha), and Chris Taylor (D-Madison) voted against the bill, as did Senators Dave Hansen (D-Green Bay) Chris Larson (D-Milwaukee), Mark Miller (D-Monona_ and Fred Risser (D-Madison). |
Donate
Help WJI advocate for justice in Wisconsin
|
RSS Feed