The Wisconsin Senate (left) and Assembly chambers on Sept. 19, 2025. Photographs by Margo Kirchner. By Alexandria Staubach
The Legislature recently ended another busy floor period, having moved forward several bills with implications for the criminal justice system. Meanwhile, two criminal justice bills were enacted into law since our last update, while another two were vetoed by Gov. Tony Evers. Big bills have been introduced regarding legalization of medical marijuana and regulation of cannabis products that have proliferated under the Farm Bill of 2018. The Legislature is rushing to discuss a constitutional amendment that provides “the right to keep and bear arms is an inalienable and fundamental individual right that shall never be infringed.” Culture-war issues like banning guaranteed income—a sister to universal income geared toward low-income individuals—and codifying English as the official language of the state are also progressing. All summaries below are quotes from the analysis provided by the Legislative Reference Bureau unless italicized (WJI’s additions). The titles are WJI’s summaries of the often lengthy and sometimes misleading titles provided by the bills' authors. When the bills in the Assembly and Senate are generally the same, WJI links to just one. An asterisk * denotes a bill substantially similar to one introduced in a previous session but which either failed to pass or was vetoed by the governor. For a refresher on the lifecycle of a bill, you can find that here. The rough progression of a successful bill is: introduction → referral to committee → passage by committee → vote by full chamber → transfer to the other chamber to go through the prior three steps there, too → to the governor for signature. The vetoed AB34/SB25 — Court-issued criminal complaints (John Doe prosecutions)* Under current law, a district attorney has the discretion as to whether or not to issue a complaint to charge a person with a crime. Current law also provides that, if a district attorney refuses to issue a complaint against a person, a judge may conduct a hearing to determine if there is probable cause to believe that the person committed a crime and, if so, issue a complaint. Under this bill, when there is an officer-involved death, which is a death that results directly from an action or an omission of a law enforcement officer, and the district attorney determined there was no basis to prosecute the officer, a court may not issue a complaint against the involved officer unless there is new or unused evidence presented. Status: Vetoed. AB66/SB76 -- Dismissing or amending certain criminal charges and deferred prosecution agreements* Under current law, a prosecutor may dismiss or amend a criminal charge without approval from the court. Under this bill, a prosecutor must get the court’s approval to dismiss or amend a charge if the charge is for any of the following: 1) a crime of domestic abuse or a violation of a domestic violence temporary restraining order or injunction; 2) theft of an automobile; 3) a crime of abuse of an individual at risk or a violation of an individual-at-risk TRO or injunction; 4) first-degree, second-degree, or third-degree sexual assault; 5) a crime against a child; 6) illegal possession of a firearm if the person has been convicted of, adjudicated delinquent for, or found not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect of, committing, soliciting, conspiring, or attempting to commit a violent felony, as defined under current law; or 7) reckless driving that results in great bodily harm. The court may approve the dismissal or amendment of such a charge only if the court finds the action is consistent with the public’s interest in deterring the commission of these crimes and with the legislature’s intent, expressed in this bill, to vigorously prosecute individuals who commit these crimes. If the court approves any dismissal or amendment in a year, the court must submit an annual report to the legislature detailing each approval…. Status: Vetoed. The introed SB534/AB547 — Medical marijuana This bill creates a program that allows a registered patient to possess and use medical cannabis products; allows designated caregivers to possess medical cannabis products on behalf of registered patients; licenses and regulates medical cannabis growers, processors, and testing laboratories; and licenses and regulates dispensaries that sell medical cannabis products. No person may possess, sell, transfer, or transport cannabis or medical cannabis products unless the person is licensed or registered as provided in the bill. Under the bill, “medical cannabis products” includes products in the form of concentrates, oils, tinctures, edibles, pills, topical forms, gels, creams, vapors, patches, liquids, and forms administered by a nebulizer but excludes cannabis in a form that can be smoked. The bill adds medical cannabis to certain provisions under the Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (PDMP) and eliminates the sunset of certain requirements under the PDMP. Status: Public hearing held in the Senate, referred to committee in Assembly. AB606 — Regulation of hemp-derived cannabis This bill regulates hemp-derived cannabinoid products in the same manner as alcohol beverages are regulated under current law and renames the Division of Alcohol Beverages in the Department of Revenue as the Division of Intoxicating Products (division). The bill also makes minor changes relating to alcohol beverage warehouses and alcohol beverage production arrangements. Status: Public hearing held in Assembly, no Senate bill introduced. SB202/AB165 -- Guaranteed income prohibition This bill prohibits a political subdivision from expending moneys of the political subdivision for the purpose of making payments to individuals under a guaranteed income program. “Guaranteed income program” is defined under the bill to mean a program under which individuals are provided with regular periodic cash payments that are unearned and that may be used for any purpose. Programs under which an individual is required to perform work or attend training are not “guaranteed income programs” under the bill. Status: Passed in the Assembly, public hearing held in Senate. SJR105/AJR112 -- Constitutional amendment providing right to keep and bear arms is an inalienable right without qualification Currently, the Wisconsin Constitution guarantees the right of the people to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation, or any other lawful purpose. This constitutional amendment, proposed to the 2025 legislature on first consideration, guarantees the right of the people to keep and bear arms without qualification. The amendment further provides that the right to keep and bear arms is an inalienable and fundamental individual right that shall never be infringed. Finally, under the amendment, any restriction on the right to keep and bear arms shall be subject to strict scrutiny. Strict scrutiny is a standard of judicial review of government limitations on fundamental rights that generally provides that such a limitation is valid and enforceable only if it is necessary to achieve a compelling state interest, if it is narrowly tailored to its purpose, and if no reasonable less restrictive alternative exists. Status: Public hearing held in Senate. The in-between SB459/AB458 -- Admissibility of expert witnesses This bill updates the current statutory rule of evidence relating to testimony by experts to conform with recent changes made to Federal Rule of Evidence (FRE) 702 intended to clarify the court’s gatekeeping role with respect to expert testimony. Current law parallels FRE 702 prior to its amendment, allowing the testimony of an expert witness if the witness’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact at issue in the case, but limiting the testimony of an expert witness to testimony that is based on sufficient facts or data, that is the product of reliable principles and methods, and that is based on the witness applying those principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case. Similar to the changes made to FRE 702, the bill confirms that the proponent of the testimony is required to demonstrate to the court that it is more likely than not that the witness’s testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, that it is the product of reliable principles and methods, and, finally, that the witness’s opinion reflects a reliable application of those principles and methods to the facts of the case. Status: Public hearing has been held in both Senate and Assembly. AB24/SB57 — County sheriff assistance with certain federal immigration functions This bill requires sheriffs to request proof of legal presence status from individuals held in a county jail for an offense punishable as a felony. The bill also requires sheriffs to comply with detainers and administrative warrants received from the federal department of homeland security regarding individuals held in the county jail for a criminal offense. Under the bill, sheriffs must annually certify to the Department of Revenue that they have complied with each of these requirements. If a sheriff fails to provide such a certification, DOR must reduce the county’s shared revenue payments for the next year by 15 percent. The bill also requires sheriffs to maintain a record of the number of individuals from whom proof of legal presence is requested who are verified as unlawfully present in this state and a list of the types of crimes for which those individuals were confined in the jail. The information must be provided to the Department of Justice upon request, and DOJ must compile the information and submit a report to the legislature. Status: Passed in the Assembly; passed through committee in Senate and available for scheduling a full Senate vote. AB377/SB357 — Recognizing English as the official language of Wisconsin Currently, Wisconsin has no official language. This bill provides that the official language of this state is English. The bill also allows any state or local governmental entity to provide a person with access to artificial intelligence or other machine-assisted translation tools in lieu of appointing an English language interpreter if the entity is authorized or required by law to appoint an interpreter for the person. Additionally, the bill provides that, unless otherwise specifically required by law, all oral and written communication by all state and local governmental entities must be in the English language, except that such communication may be in another language when appropriate to the circumstances of an individual case, the implementation of a program in a specific instance, or the discharge of a responsibility in a particular situation. The bill also permits state and local government officers and employees to use a language other than English in oral or written communication whenever necessary for one or more of eight specified purposes. Finally, the bill precludes any state or local governmental entity from prohibiting any person from becoming proficient in any language or restricting the oral or written use of any language for a nongovernmental purpose. Status: Public hearing held in Assembly. AB89/SB92 — Retail theft enhanced penalties Under current law, the penalty for the crime of property theft varies by the value of the property taken…. Similarly, the penalty for the crime of retail theft varies by the value of the merchandise or service that is taken…. This bill specifies that, if, in a six-month period, a defendant commits more than one violation of property theft or more than one violation of retail theft, the value of items taken at each violation may be aggregated and the crimes may be prosecuted as one property theft crime or one retail theft crime. The penalty for the crime would be determined by the aggregated value of the items taken. Creates a new crime. Status: Passed in the Assembly; passed through committee in Senate and available for scheduling a full Senate vote. Newly enacted laws: AB77/SB66 — Registration plate concealment devices penalty Under current law, any motor vehicle for which the Department of Transportation has issued registration plates must display those plates, along with any decals issued for the plates. This bill prohibits the possession, sale, purchase, installation, and use of a registration plate concealment device, which is a manual, electronic, or mechanical device designed or adapted to be installed on a motor vehicle to 1) switch between two or more registration plates; 2) move, obstruct, or conceal a registration plate; or 3) alter the appearance of a registration plate so that the registration number cannot be seen and read. The bill also prohibits the equipment of any motor vehicle with a registration plate concealment device. A person who violates these prohibitions may be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned for not more than 90 days, or both. Any vehicle equipped in violation of these prohibitions may be impounded, and reasonable costs for towing and impounding the vehicle may be assessed against the owner. Creates a new crime. Status: Enacted into law. AB75/SB115 — DOJ collection and reporting of certain criminal case data* This bill requires state DOJ to collect from the director of state courts all of the following information for each criminal case: 1) the county in which the case was filed; 2) the name of the prosecuting attorney assigned to the case; 3) the name of the court official assigned to the case; 4) the criminal charge filed; 5) the charging recommendation from the referring law enforcement agency, if applicable; 6) for each case, whether the court released the defendant without bail, upon the execution of an unsecured appearance bond, upon the execution of an appearance bond with sufficient solvent sureties, or upon the deposit of cash in lieu of sureties, or denied release, and the name of the court official who made the decision; 7) for each case for which a court required the execution of an appearance bond with sufficient solvent sureties, the monetary amount of the bond and the name of the court official who made the decision; 8) for each case for which a court required the deposit of cash in lieu of sureties, the monetary amount of cash required and the name of the court official who made the decision; 9) any other conditions of release imposed on the defendant and the name of the court official who made the decision; 10) whether any plea bargain was offered in the case; 11) whether a deferred prosecution agreement was offered in the case; 12) whether any charge relating to the case was dismissed; and 13) whether the case resulted in a conviction. Status: Enacted into law.
0 Comments
By Alexandria Staubach Menus recently obtained by Wisconsin Justice Initiative for Green Bay Correctional Institution show a diet dominated by ultra-processed foods high in carbohydrates, fat, and sugar, raising concerns about chronic illnesses and the health of those held in Wisconsin’s prisons. WJI enlisted University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee Professor Renee Scampini, director of the school’s undergraduate public health program, to evaluate menus WJI obtained through an open records request. The Department of Corrections provided menus from GBCI for a sample week in January 2025. The menus included a general menu plus some specialty menus for those needing halal, kosher, soft food, or other diets. Scampini looked most closely at the general menu.  Scampini. Photograph from the UW–Milwaukee website. “This overall diet makes for high total fat content, added sugar content and other cardiac/cancer concerns,” Scampini opined. Taken at face value, the menus indicate incarcerated individuals are provided with an average of 2,689 calories a day if they eat everything provided. That amount is consistent with recommendations from “The Merck Manual” for sedentary adult males, ages 19 to 60. “This menu looks like it was specifically written to meet an institutional standard of the U.S. dietary requirements,” Scampini told WJI. The calories based on serving size provided in the DOC menus are “probably close to correct,” she said. But she added that how “that actually meshes with what's eaten/tolerated is questionable." As an example, Scampini pointed out that satisfaction of protein goals was primarily met though milk—a questionable practice as many U.S. adults are lactose intolerant. Scampini said this intolerance is even more prevalent in minority groups, particularly Asian American, African American, and Native American populations. “This is the same practice that most U.S. schools use because they contract out dietary services,” said Scampini. The practice yields a “massive industry of processed prepared (e.g., heat-and-eat) foods that ‘match’ U.S. dietary guidelines,” she said. “Whole grains, fruit, and vegetable goals are woefully low, which also makes fiber low,” Scampini told WJI. She also said that other nutrient needs, such as vitamins and minerals, were likely being met through fortified and enriched processed foods like cereals and muffins. Scampini’s concerns are consistent with insights from inside GBCI. An anonymous resident there told WJI that breakfast was “strictly dry cereal and bread that at times is old.” The same source told WJI that for a while the lunches and dinners during the weekend were a “bag meal which consisted of basically nothing but junk food and/or old (Un)Crustable peanut butter and jelly sandwiches.” Scampini hypothesized, based on her time spent in industrial kitchens, that animal-based products in the DOC diet may also be ultra-processed. “For example, chicken is often a reconstituted meat of chicken plus fillers/stabilizers for moisture/easy preparation,” she said. Scampini conservatively estimated that 75% to 83% of calories provided by DOC come from ultra-processed foods. That number that could be higher, as she assumed for her calculations that all fruits and vegetables listed on the menu were fresh, which she told WJI was “highly unlikely.” According to Scampini, the long-term concerns associated with eating an ultra-processed diet stem from its effects on the metabolism. In one multinational study, higher ultra-processed food consumption was associated with an increased risk of cancer and cardiometabolic diseases.  A table showing Scampini's calculations of total unprocessed and total ultra-processed calories for each day of the sample GBCI menu. The menu’s calorie count presumes that a prison resident eats or drinks everything, including all of the ketchup, mustard, mayonnaise, sugar packets, and milk provided. For those who are lactose intolerant, do not eat every condiment, or are tired of Uncrustable sandwiches and chips, the calorie intake will be less. There “hasn’t been a meal I’ve had in a while that was fulfilling or even warm to enjoy, which causes me not to even want to eat it, but since I’m not that fortunate to have canteen, I partake in what I can to survive,” the GBCI resident said. Even if an individual has funds to buy items at the canteen, several food items there are also ultra-processed.  The menu at Green Bay Correctional Institution from Jan. 5-11, 2025, provided by the Wisconsin Department of Corrections in response to Wisconsin Justice Initiative's open records request. By Alexandria Staubach
Legislation in response to the temporary suspension of Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan quietly made its way through public hearing and voting in the Assembly’s Judiciary Committee. Bill AB380/SB381 would require judges who are suspended for misconduct to receive no pay. However, the law would not apply retroactively. So whether or not it passes, it will not apply to Dugan. The bill passed out of committee on Oct. 1 on a party-line vote: four Republicans for and three Democrats against. The Wisconsin Supreme Court in April suspended Dugan, who was charged criminally in federal court for allegedly helping an undocumented immigrant evade federal law enforcement. In doing so, the court invoked its “superintending and administrative authority over all courts in the state.” The Supreme Court did not impose additional sanctions or conditions beyond the temporary prohibition on Dugan from exercising the powers of a circuit court judge. She continues to be paid. At the public hearing on the bill on Sept. 25, Rep. Andrew Hysell (D-Sun Prairie) highlighted that the bill may not address the conduct that its proponents seek to censure. He pointed out that if a judge was subsequently found innocent, there was no mechanism to redress backpay. Hysell is one of the few attorneys in the Legislature, The bill was then amended to permit back pay from the date of suspension if ultimately the Supreme Court imposes no discipline on a judge and to clarify that the temporary suspension must be for criminal misconduct. The bill appears aimed at Dugan's actions rather than any wider issue that the Legislature otherwise would have addressed. In written testimony, bill sponsor Rep. Shae Sortwell (R-Two Rivers) said that “Wisconsin taxpayers must be protected from the misconduct and/or commission of a crime by rogue judges.” At the public hearing and before the committee vote, Sortwell focused on Dugan’s specific case. He characterized her suspension as a “taxpayer-funded vacation” and said he found it “mind-boggling . . . that some people are OK with judges helping criminals escape law enforcement officers.” He said he thought the Supreme Court was “obviously predisposed to be more favorable of the actions of Judge Dugan for their policy positions.” Judicial suspensions are rare. Legislative materials associated with the bill indicate only 15 judges have been suspended since 1978. The Senate’s version of the bill has been referred to its Committee on Judiciary and Public Safety and has not yet been scheduled for public hearing. Jury selection in Dugan's case is set to begin Dec. 11. By Alexandria Staubach The Wisconsin Court of Appeals last week invalidated part of a law that permitted individuals, institutionalized as "not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect” (NGI) and later released, to be sent back into state custody for mere rule violations.  Judge JoAnne F. Kloppenburg wrote for the three-judge panel in District IV, joined by Judges Brian W. Blanchard and Jennifer E. Nashold. The case centered on the institutionalization, release, and reinstitutionalization of Desmond J. Wilhite. Wilhite had been found NGI on a charge of threatening a law enforcement officer and committed to the care of the Wisconsin Department of Health Services. In November 2022, the state stipulated to Wilhite’s conditional release, stating that he “did not 'currently pose a significant risk of harm to self, others, property.'” As a result, the circuit court ordered Wilhite conditionally released in February 2023 to the same community residential facility where he previously resided. That release was later revoked by Dane County Circuit Court Judge Josann M. Reynolds. DHS had sought to have Wilhite’s conditional release revoked based on DHS rule violations, the nature of which were not specified in the appellate court’s opinion. The statute at issue allowed revocation and reinstitutionalization of NGI-committed individuals who had been released based on 1) violation of a release condition set by the court or DHS, or 2) the individual’s current dangerousness. Reynolds found that the state had met its burden of proof regarding rule violations by Wilhite and that it was "'not a situation where (she had) to find dangerousness.'" Wilhite argued on appeal that the law was unconstitutional on its face because it allowed a circuit court to revoke an NGI individual’s conditional release based solely on a violation of a court-ordered or DHS rule, absent proof of dangerousness. Wilhite relied on federal law to argue that it “always violates due process” to commit an individual to institutional care without proof of dangerousness, because due process requires release from commitment when the individual is no longer dangerous. The court of appeals agreed. Kloppenburg wrote that if an individual is conditionally released, the court must necessarily find that an individual no longer presents a danger to themselves or the community. “(I)f a court finds that an NGI acquittee is no longer dangerous, the court must release the acquittee because the constitution prohibits continued commitment.” After that, “the inference of dangerousness from an NGI verdict is no longer sufficient to justify commitment; rather, dangerousness must be established as a matter of fact,” she wrote. “It follows from this that, to avoid violating due process, a circuit court many not commit to institutional care a conditionally released NGI acquittee without making a new finding of dangerousness,” Kloppenburg wrote. “(I)n all such cases the court has previously determined that there was not clear and convincing evidence that the acquittee is dangerous.” Because state and federal law require a finding of dangerousness to justify the detention of an NGI individual, the portion of the statute allowing reinstitutionalization for rule violations alone is unconstitutional, the court held. The court left in place the remainder of the statute. Wilhite’s case was reversed and remanded to the circuit court with directions to vacate the order that revoked his conditional release and recommitted him to institutional care.   The Wisconsin State Capitol on Sept. 19, 2025. Photograph by Margo Kirchner. By Alexandria Staubach
With the Wisconsin Legislature roughly halfway through its 2025-2026 session, it’s time for a roundup of pending legislation that could impact civil rights, the criminal justice system, and courts. The Legislature recently exited a floor period—when legislation can be scheduled for a vote. Gov. Evers vetoed a bill that would have required the Department of Corrections to recommend revocation for individuals charged with a new offense while on community supervision. WJI covered that bill here and here. The Legislature’s upcoming floor period will run from Oct. 7-16. The following bills have made significant progress. All summaries below are quotes from the analysis provided by the Legislative Reference Bureau unless italicized (WJI’s additions). The titles are WJI’s summaries of the often lengthy and sometimes misleading ones provided by the bill’s author. When the bills in the Assembly and Senate are generally the same, WJI links to just one. An asterisk * denotes a bill substantially similar to one introduced in a previous session but which either failed to pass or was vetoed by the governor. For a refresher on the lifecycle of a bill, you can find that here. But the rough progression of a successful bill is: introduction → referral to committee → passage by committee → vote by full chamber → transfer to the other chamber to go through the prior three steps there, too → to the governor for signature. AB34/SB25 – Court issued criminal complaints (John Doe prosecutions)* Under current law, a district attorney has the discretion as to whether or not to issue a complaint to charge a person with a crime. Current law also provides that, if a district attorney refuses to issue a complaint against a person, a judge may conduct a hearing to determine if there is probable cause to believe that the person committed a crime and, if so, issue a complaint. Under this bill, when there is an officer-involved death, which is a death that results directly from an action or an omission of a law enforcement officer, and the district attorney determined there was no basis to prosecute the officer, a court may not issue a complaint against the involved officer unless there is new or unused evidence presented. Status: Passed in Senate; qualified for scheduling in the Assembly. AB4/SB30 – Required civics instruction* Beginning in the 2027-28 school year, this bill requires school boards, independent charter schools, and private schools participating in a parental choice program to include in their respective curricula instruction lessons in civics that includes specific following topics and pupil development goals… The bill also requires school boards, independent charter schools, and private schools participating in a parental choice program to annually report to the Department of Public Instruction regarding how they are meeting the civics instruction requirement created under the bill. DPI must then compile the information and submit it to the legislature…. (U)nder current law, a school board may grant a high school diploma to a pupil only if the pupil meets specific statutory requirements, including earning a certain number of credits in various subjects in the high school grades and passing a civics test comprised of questions that are identical to those that are asked as part of the process of applying for U.S. citizenship. Currently, a pupil must earn at least three credits of social studies, including state and local government. The bill specifies that the social studies credits also must include one-half credit of civics instruction. This graduation requirement first applies to pupils who graduate in the 2030-31 school year. Status: Passed in Assembly; referred to Committee on Education in the Senate. AB24/SB57 – County sheriff assistance with certain federal immigration functions This bill requires sheriffs to request proof of legal presence status from individuals held in a county jail for an offense punishable as a felony. The bill also requires sheriffs to comply with detainers and administrative warrants received from the federal department of homeland security regarding individuals held in the county jail for a criminal offense. Under the bill, sheriffs must annually certify to the Department of Revenue that they have complied with each of these requirements. If a sheriff fails to provide such a certification, DOR must reduce the county’s shared revenue payments for the next year by 15 percent. The bill also requires sheriffs to maintain a record of the number of individuals from whom proof of legal presence is requested who are verified as unlawfully present in this state and a list of the types of crimes for which those individuals were confined in the jail. The information must be provided to the Department of Justice upon request, and DOJ must compile the information and submit a report to the legislature. Status: Passed in the Assembly; passed committee in the Senate and qualified for scheduling. AB77/SB66 – Registration plate concealment devices and providing a penalty Under current law, any motor vehicle for which the Department of Transportation has issued registration plates must display those plates, along with any decals issued for the plates. This bill prohibits the possession, sale, purchase, installation, and use of a registration plate concealment device, which is a manual, electronic, or mechanical device designed or adapted to be installed on a motor vehicle to 1) switch between two or more registration plates; 2) move, obstruct, or conceal a registration plate; or 3) alter the appearance of a registration plate so that the registration number cannot be seen and read. The bill also prohibits the equipment of any motor vehicle with a registration plate concealment device. A person who violates these prohibitions may be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned for not more than 90 days, or both. Any vehicle equipped in violation of these prohibitions may be impounded, and reasonable costs for towing and impounding the vehicle may be assessed against the owner. Creates a new crime. Status: Passed in the Senate; passed committee in the Assembly and qualified for scheduling. AB66/SB76 – Dismissing or amending certain criminal charges and deferred prosecution agreements* Under current law, a prosecutor may dismiss or amend a criminal charge without approval from the court. Under this bill, a prosecutor must get the court’s approval to dismiss or amend a charge if the charge is for any of the following: 1) a crime of domestic abuse or a violation of a domestic violence temporary restraining order or injunction; 2) theft of an automobile; 3) a crime of abuse of an individual at risk or a violation of an individual-at-risk TRO or injunction; 4) first-degree, second-degree, or third-degree sexual assault; 5) a crime against a child; 6) illegal possession of a firearm if the person has been convicted of, adjudicated delinquent for, or found not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect of, committing, soliciting, conspiring, or attempting to commit a violent felony, as defined under current law; or 7) reckless driving that results in great bodily harm. The court may approve the dismissal or amendment of such a charge only if the court finds the action is consistent with the public’s interest in deterring the commission of these crimes and with the legislature’s intent, expressed in this bill, to vigorously prosecute individuals who commit these crimes. If the court approves any dismissal or amendment in a year, the court must submit an annual report to the legislature detailing each approval. Current law allows a prosecutor to enter into a deferred prosecution agreement with a defendant who is charged or may be charged with a crime. Generally, under a deferred prosecution agreement, the prosecutor agrees to dismiss a charge or not file a charge if the defendant complies with specified conditions. In addition, current law provides specific criteria for a deferred prosecution agreement if the defendant is or may be charged with child sexual abuse if the defendant is the parent of, the guardian of, a close relative of, or residing with the child; with a crime of domestic violence; or with a violation of a domestic violence TRO or injunction. Current law also prohibits a prosecutor from entering into a deferred prosecution agreement with a defendant who is charged or may be charged with operating a vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant or a controlled substance, causing injury to another while operating a vehicle while under the influence, or homicide by intoxicated use of a vehicle. The bill prohibits a prosecutor from entering into a deferred prosecution agreement with a defendant if a complaint or information is filed that alleges the person committed any of the same crimes listed in items 1 to 7 above. Status: Passed in the Senate; qualified for scheduling in the Assembly. AB124/SB146 – Prohibiting persons convicted of a violent crime from changing their name Current law prohibits a person who is registered as a sex offender with the Department of Corrections from changing their name during the period they are required to register. With certain exceptions, a person who violates the prohibition is guilty of a Class H felony. This bill prohibits a person who has been convicted of a violent crime, which is defined in the bill and includes homicide, battery, kidnapping, stalking, human trafficking, and sexual assault, from changing their name. A person who violates the prohibition is guilty of a Class H felony. Creates a new crime. Status: Passed in the Senate; qualified for scheduling in the Assembly. AB89/SB92 – Retail theft enhanced penalties Under current law, the penalty for the crime of property theft varies by the value of the property taken…. Similarly, the penalty for the crime of retail theft varies by the value of the merchandise or service that is taken…. This bill specifies that, if, in a six-month period, a defendant commits more than one violation of property theft or more than one violation of retail theft, the value of items taken at each violation may be aggregated and the crimes may be prosecuted as one property theft crime or one retail theft crime. The penalty for the crime would be determined by the aggregated value of the items taken. Creates a new crime. Status: Passed in Assembly; public hearing held in Senate, no vote from committee yet. AB75/SB115 – DOJ collection and reporting of certain criminal case data* This bill requires state DOJ to collect from the director of state courts all of the following information for each criminal case: 1) the county in which the case was filed; 2) the name of the prosecuting attorney assigned to the case; 3) the name of the court official assigned to the case; 4) the criminal charge filed; 5) the charging recommendation from the referring law enforcement agency, if applicable; 6) for each case, whether the court released the defendant without bail, upon the execution of an unsecured appearance bond, upon the execution of an appearance bond with sufficient solvent sureties, or upon the deposit of cash in lieu of sureties, or denied release, and the name of the court official who made the decision; 7) for each case for which a court required the execution of an appearance bond with sufficient solvent sureties, the monetary amount of the bond and the name of the court official who made the decision; 8) for each case for which a court required the deposit of cash in lieu of sureties, the monetary amount of cash required and the name of the court official who made the decision; 9) any other conditions of release imposed on the defendant and the name of the court official who made the decision; 10) whether any plea bargain was offered in the case; 11) whether a deferred prosecution agreement was offered in the case; 12) whether any charge relating to the case was dismissed; and 13) whether the case resulted in a conviction. Status: Passed in the Assembly; qualified for scheduling in the Senate. AB148/SB147 – Interpreter action by telephone or live audiovisual means in criminal and civil proceedings Under current law, in any civil or criminal proceeding other than a trial, a court may permit an interpreter to act by telephone or live audiovisual means. This bill removes the exclusion for trials, so that an interpreter may act by telephone or live audiovisual means in any civil or criminal proceeding. Amended to require the consent of all parties. Status: Available for scheduling in the Senate; public hearing held in the Assembly. Update 10/2/25: Passed by Assembly committee on Oct. 1, available for scheduling in the Assembly for a full vote. AB190/SB194 – Obtaining attorney fees and costs under the state's public records law when an authority voluntarily releases a contested record after an action has been filed in court Currently, if a person requests access to a public record and the agency or officer in state or local government having custody of the record, known as an “authority” under the public records law, withholds or delays granting access to the record or a part of the record, the requester may bring a mandamus action asking a court to order release of the record or part of the record. Current law requires the court to award reasonable attorney fees, damages of not less than $100, and other actual costs to the requester if the requester prevails in whole or in substantial part in any such action. The Wisconsin Supreme Court decided in 2022 that a requester prevails in whole or in substantial part only if the requester obtains a judicially sanctioned change in the parties’ legal relationship, for example, a court order requiring disclosure of a record. See, Friends of Frame Park, U.A. v. City of Waukesha, 2022 WI 57. Under the supreme court’s decision, a requester generally is not entitled to attorney fees and costs if the authority voluntarily or unilaterally without a court order provides contested records after the requester files an action in court. This bill supersedes the supreme court’s decision in Friends of Frame Park. Under the bill, a requester has prevailed in whole or in substantial part if the requester has obtained relief through any of the following means: 1. A judicial order or an enforceable written agreement or consent decree. 2. The authority’s voluntary or unilateral release of a record if the court determines that the filing of the mandamus action was a substantial factor contributing to that voluntary or unilateral release. This standard is substantially the same as the standard that applies for a requester to obtain attorney fees and costs under the federal Freedom of Information Act. Status: Passed in the Senate; qualified for scheduling in the Assembly.  Community members fill the room at the Milwaukee Fire and Police Commission meeting on Thursday, Sept. 18, 2025. Photograph by Amanda Merkwae. By Alexandria Staubach Almost three dozen members of the public turned up at a Milwaukee Fire and Police Commission meeting last week to discuss an item nowhere on the agenda. The FPC wanted to talk about its procedure for public comment at meetings and had invited representatives from Black Leaders Organizing for Communities, the Milwaukee Alliance Against Racist and Political Repression, and others to publicly comment on FPC file 212211, a communication from the commission regarding public comment at meetings. While some community members highlighted suggestions for improving communication between the FPC and the public, most instead used their time to discuss the volume of high-speed pursuits that have resulted in innocent bystander fatalities this year. A crash the day before Thursday’s meeting killed a mother and her two children at North 35th Street and West Vliet Street. Nine people have lost their lives from high-speed police chases this year—six of them innocent bystanders. What was actually on the agenda: a change in the FPC’s public comment policy. For years, items that were not formally noticed on the commission’s agenda were not up for discussion and could not be commented on by members of the FPC. While the public comment policy is still evolving, members of the public who register in advance will be given five minutes to speak, up from the previous two-minute limit. Also, FPC members will be allowed to address the topics raised, even if they were not on the agenda. FPC Executive Director Leon Todd said the “potential” improvements to the public comment policy came from considering recommendations in the Milwaukee Turners’ 2024 white paper. The Turners issued the white paper after observing the commission’s meetings over the course of a year. Nothing legally prevented the FPC from having such a policy in the past. Todd said “there is no legal prohibition” addressing nonagenda public comments at a meeting, “so long as they take no official action” and keep the discussion to the public comment section of the proceedings. In addition to using the new policy on comment time and topics at Thursday’s meeting, the commission rolled out a new website for community members to register in advance for future meetings. The website encourages people to “be clear and respectful,” advises them to avoid sharing confidential information, and instructs that testimony should relate “to the FPC’s role in oversight, policy, recruitment, discipline, or accountability” of the Milwaukee Police Department, Milwaukee Fire Department, or Department of Emergency Communications. Most attendees seemed receptive of change, but some highlighted that expanded time alone would not fix the communications dynamics at FPC meetings. “I see you all engaging earnestly,” said community advocate and FPC meeting regular Ron Jansen. “The structure undermines the effort,” he continued, because the public comment would still occur at the top of a meeting. “We all give our comment and show all our cards, and then the police come up here and call us liars over and over again,” Jansen said. The format “doesn’t give us a fighting chance to adjust our message,” he said. Following the FPC meeting, WJI spoke with BLOC member J. Robinson by phone about how community members co-opted the meeting time to discuss their priority issue of police pursuits. Robinson said although they had originally intended to speak on the public comment agenda item, the “reckless driving issue was more important,” and MPD’s pursuit policy was “doing more harm than good.” About the changes in communication policy, Robinson told WJI “it was better to be able to speak to the issues.” According to the FPC's 2024 vehicle pursuit report, 71% of Milwaukee police chases in 2024 reached speeds in excess of 75 miles per hour, up from 66% in 2023. A decade ago, the percentage was just 22%. Even during the height of COVID, which is widely regarded as exacerbating reckless driving, the percentage was 58%. Police most frequently engage in high-speed pursuits in response to reckless driving. The circumstances permitting police pursuits are found in MPD’s Standard Operating Procedure 660. Public outcry about pursuits that resulted in injury resulted in a restricted policy that took effect in 2010. That policy brought pursuit numbers to their all-time low of just 50 pursuits in 2012. In 2017, though, the MPD expanded officers’ ability to pursue vehicles in response to reckless driving. That policy remains in effect today, with a modification last year that limits when they can initiate a chase over drug activity. “As it stands, SOP 660 does not benefit this community,” said Milwaukee Alliance representative Kayla Patterson at Thursday’s meeting. “The last few months highlight gross incompetence” and a “general shameful agenda prioritizing property over lives,” Patterson said. She cautioned that “if the turnout in the room is any indication, the community is getting restless.” Antoher speaker, Tiffany Stark, said her child’s father became paralyzed from the neck down as an innocent bystander to a police pursuit. “We want to blame the criminal, but we have a policy that is harming innocent people," she said. Janaisa Rhodes lost her partner as an innocent bystander to a pursuit earlier this year. She appeared for public comment with her 2-year-old son. “You guys are supposed to be serving and protecting us, but you’re doing a lot of the damage,” she said. Public comment was not just criticism. Some speakers offered suggestions and potential solutions. “Property crimes should not qualify for pursuit,” suggested community member Brian Verdin, who also talked about using darts, meaning tracker technology shot at cars to apprehend suspects without pursuit. Concerned citizen Alex Larson referenced the 2024 vehicle pursuit report to highlight that the apprehension rate from a police chase is only 49%. “It’s a coin flip” that lives are being lost over, he said. Larson asked whether the FPC knew how much tax money had been paid by the city to settle innocent bystander claims over the years. Knowing the taxpayer impact and the lives SOP 660 has cost over the years could have a significant impact, he suggested. The FPC did not know the answer to Larson’s question. However, under the new comment policy Todd was able to say it would be good data, which he intended to look into. Per the 2024 vehicle pursuit report, the actual number of pursuits was down just slightly from 2023 (957 compared to 1,081), but maximum speeds were up, and a slightly greater percentage of pursuits resulted in crashes.  Figure from the 2024 City of Milwaukee Fire and Police Commission Vehicle Pursuit Report. In 2024, 26 pursuits resulted in an injury to an officer, 52 pursuits resulted in an injury to an innocent bystander or third party, and 164 pursuits resulted in an injury to the person being pursued—each a slight increase from 2023. WJI discussed the FPC's 2023 vehicle pursuit report here.  The legislation mosaic inside the Wisconsin Capitol dome. Photograph by Margo Kirchner. By Alexandria Staubach
Despite decades of research highlighting the detrimental effects and inefficiencies of mandatory minimum sentences, the Wisconsin Legislature is considering a bill that would impose a mandatory minimum for human trafficking. The Assembly Committee on Criminal Justice and Public Safety last week held a hearing on the bill, AB 265. Legislators mostly bypassed the mandatory minimum aspect of the proposed law. “The number of convictions versus the number of incidents is minuscule to that extent I support this bill,” said bill co-sponsor Rep. Jerry O’Connor (R-Fond du Lac). Law enforcement and legislators shared stories on the human tragedy associated with trafficking. “Lives are destroyed in a massive, massive manner,” said Rep. Robert Wittke (R-Caledonia). Wittke said the impetus for the bill came from law enforcement. “I can’t state enough how working with law enforcement, when they come to you with something they have seen on the street, I believe that we should listen and do the job that we were elected to do and bring legislation forward,” he said at the hearing. No party spoke in opposition. Under current Wisconsin law, human trafficking is punishable by a maximum term of incarceration of 25 years, and trafficking a child is punishable by a maximum term of incarceration of 40 years. The bill would increase the maximum penalties and raise the felony levels of the offenses, and it would also create a mandatory minimum term of confinement in prison of 10 years for adult trafficking and 15 years for child trafficking. The mandatory minimum part of the bill raises concerns for criminal justice advocates. “Nobody disagrees that human trafficking is among the most serious of crimes,” says WJI President and criminal defense attorney Craig Johnson. “Nonetheless, there’s no evidence to support that mandatory minimums decrease the instances of the offense or otherwise deter traffickers,” he said. Johnson believes that "any new law that interferes with the discretion of a judge to fashion a sentence that fits the individual circumstances of a particular case is a bad idea.” “In Wisconsin, legislators are elected to write laws, not sentence people. That's a judge's job, and it's what they're elected to do. If a judge's sentences do not reflect the will of the electorate, the remedy is in the voting booth," he said. According to a report by The Sentencing Project, “criminal legal experts for ideologically diverse backgrounds maintain that mandatory minimums are an overly harsh, disproportionate punishment.” The Sentencing Project found that mandatory minimums shift sentencing discretion away from judges and onto prosecutors, as the latter control the decisions to charge and whether to offer a plea agreement. “(T)he threat of mandatory minimums also encourages defendants to plead to a different crime to avoid a stiff mandatory sentence,” the report found. Mandatory minimums are not common in Wisconsin. They apply to a few offenses, including second and subsequent felon-in-possession, intoxicated driving, child sex offenses, and second or subsequent sexual assault and violent crimes. Racine County Sheriff's Office Investigator Luke Johnson is working with legislators on the bill. He spent two years between 2023 and 2025 on a task force specifically targeting human trafficking and internet crimes against children. When asked whether he or the legislators had consulted with prosecutors or judges about the mandatory minimum aspect of the bill, he indicated that he had not. In his written comments in support of the bill, O’Connor said that his support of mandatory minimums is intended to “ensure that the perpetrators of human trafficking are punished for their crimes but also prevented from doing further harm to their victims and our communities.” Despite the lengthy sentences already permitted, “across our county, Americans are seeing the disastrous and tragic consequences of prosecutors and judges who are proudly soft on crime,” he said. O’Connor said his concerns stem from five out-of-state sentences from 2022 to 2025 where defendants convicted of trafficking received between six and eight years in prison. Those sentences were imposed in New York, Los Angeles, and Colorado. The only Wisconsin sentence O’Connor referenced was a case in which a defendant convicted of child sex trafficking received a lengthy 34 years in prison. The Senate's companion bill, SB 266, has not yet been scheduled for a public hearing in that chamber.  By Alexandria Staubach The Wisconsin Assembly this week spent its time voting on AB 58, which generally prohibits the display of any flag other than the U.S. flag or State of Wisconsin flag from being flown, hung, or otherwise displayed from the exterior of any government building. “Are we really going to pass a law prohibiting the city and county of Milwaukee from raising a flag celebrating Black people’s liberation from chattel slavery?” asked ACLU of Wisconsin in a letter of opposition to the Legislature. In a word, “yes.” The stated purpose of the legislation is to unify Wisconsinites. “Our goal with this non-partisan bill is to ensure that our schools and government institutions remain above partisan politics,” said Rep. Jerry L O’Connor (R-Fond du Lac) in written testimony. But the bill has specific language that would preclude the flag representing Juneteenth from being flown. Milwaukee has flown the Juneteenth flag from city hall during the week of June 19 since 2020, having one of the oldest annual public celebrations of the holiday. “This action has been and will continue to be more divisive,” said Rep. Christine Sinicki (D-Milwaukee). “Diversity should be celebrated, not hidden away,” she said. She questioned whether the bill violates First Amendment rights and whether it will survive legal challenges should it be enacted as law. The bill applies to municipal buildings as well as state buildings. And it won’t affect just Juneteenth flags. The pride flag received special attention at Thursday’s hearing. It would no longer make periodic appearances at government buildings, especially the Capitol, if the law is enacted. Rep. Chuck Wichgers (R-Muskego) took issue with several constituents who reached out before the day’s proceedings to express opposition to the legislation but who could not tell him what the pride flag means, when he asked. “Their own communities don’t know what the flag fully means or represents but we all have to accept it,” he said. “I don’t think we should be in the business of putting flags up that sow divisiveness to protect one group’s feelings but offend many others,” he said. Wichgers made no secret of his opposition to the pride flag specifically, concluding, “flying that above our Capitol is beneath our dignity.” No flag could relate to any political party or social cause, sexual orientation, gender identity, religious viewpoint or racial identity. Those related to a “gang or extremist group as designated by the federal bureau of investigation” are also expressly precluded. Exceptions are made, however, for flags of local governmental units, foreign dignitaries and delegations, the armed services, indigenous nations, special law enforcement units, and universities, among others. Despite O’Connor’s testimony that the bill was nonpartisan, and his insistence that the legislation would help everyone “get along,” the vote proceeded along party lines, with 50 Republicans voting in favor of the bill and 44 Democrats opposing it. Four members “paired” their vote to facilitate their absence. Vote pairing occurs when members of the opposite party or with opposing views agree in advance to not vote on a given issue, effectively canceling the other out. The pair is not counted toward the official vote but is recorded. The bill now moves to the Senate. If passed there, it would then go to the governor for approval or veto.  Former Chief Justice Ziegler is outraged by changes to Supreme Court's internal operating procedures9/9/2025 By Alexandria Staubach
Justice Annette Kingsland Ziegler says the Supreme Court of Wisconsin has abandoned two-year-old internal operating procedures that took power from the chief justice and gave more decision-making authority to an administrative committee controlled by the court's majority. Ziegler discussed the recent procedural changes in her dissent to a July 2025 decision declining to establish a permanent specialty court for complex business litigation. “The public will not know what occurred behind closed doors for this about-face to take place,” said Ziegler about the changes in procedure, which occurred since Ziegler was replaced as chief justice. Wisconsin Watch in 2023 published the heated emails exchanged between justices when the majority formed by Justices Ann Walsh Bradley, Rebecca Dallet, Jill Karofsky, and Janet Protasiewicz changed internal operating procedures shortly after Protasiewicz took her seat on the court. The changes took power away from the chief justice—at that time Ziegler. Ziegler served two two-year terms as chief justice, from 2021-2025. This spring, the same majority that changed the rules in 2023 voted in two new chief justices, first Walsh Bradley, whose term on the court expired at the end of July, and now Karofsky. Ziegler was the only chief justice to deal with the more liberal majority’s internal operating procedures. Ziegler complained in her dissent that "these four justices embrace process when it is convenient and disregard process when it is not." Back in 2023, she said, "(t)he 'court of four,' unlike any majority in history, ensured that it would completely control what had always been understood as the constitutional authority of the chief justice." Ziegler wrote in her dissent that “almost immediately" after her ouster as chief, the court “reverted to the original practices and procedures that had been in place for over four decades.” The “nearly two-year-old changes to our administrative practices and procedures relating to the constitutional role of the chief justice were undone.” Ziegler called the about-face “the exercise of sheer will to undo the constitutional role of the chief justice, when convenient, and reinstate it, when opportune,” calling it a “power grab” and “complete disregard for process.” As for the matter of the business courts, Ziegler criticized the court’s decision to terminate the nearly decade-old pilot project for specialty business courts. She said the decision to end the business court project was a disservice to the memory and work of former Chief Justice Patience Roggensack, who led the court from 2015 to 2019. “The majority does this without any regard to the fact that former Chief Justice Roggensack viewed this initiative as of upmost importance.” Ziegler did not acknowledge in her opinion that conservatives also have a history of changing court procedure when it suits them. Ten years ago, Republicans used a constitutional amendment to replace the 126-year-old practice of the longest-serving justice serving as chief. At the time, Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson was the longest-serving chief justice in the state’s history, having taken the helm in 1996. Some felt then that conservatives were attacking the liberal Abrahamson. A campaign backed by $600,000 from the state’s largest business group resulted in passage by voters in April 2015 of a constitutional amendment allowing the justices to vote for chief justice. Abrahamson sued over the amendment but lost. Roggensack became chief on May 1, 2015, having been voted in shortly after the amendment passed. When the new majority of justices in August 2023 passed internal operating procedures to take away certain powers of the chief justice, Dallet said in a statement that they “were primarily made to ensure that any one person could not hold up the work of the entire court.” The statement came at the opening of the court’s 2023-2024 term, during which the court issued a record low of 14 opinions. The court’s productivity is up, with 23 cases decided in the 2024-2025 term. However, the numbers still lag behind the average of 50 decision cases in the previous decade, according to a report from University of Wisconsin’s State Democracy Research Initiative.  By Alexandria Staubach
The Wisconsin Supreme Court is back in session, having heard its first oral arguments of the new term on Tuesday. The pair of cases before the court examine privacy under the Fourth Amendment regarding the online world, considering whether materials brought to law enforcement by third-party online platforms require a warrant to be opened. Oral arguments opened for the first time in 30 years without Justice Ann Walsh Bradley. Newly installed Chief Justice Jill Karofsky presided, and Justice Susan Crawford made her debut on the high court bench. The first case involved Snapchat’s sending of a video suspected of containing child sexual abuse material (CSAM) to Wisconsin law enforcement. Snapchat had traced the video to Michael Joseph Gasper’s account. A Waukesha County Sheriff’s Office detective first viewed the material without a warrant. He then obtained a warrant that led to discovery of more CSAM material on Gasper’s phone. Gasper successfully moved to suppress the evidence in Waukesha County Circuit Court. Judge Michael Bohren ruled that Gasper retained a reasonable expectation of privacy in his Snapchat data. Prosecutors successfully appealed Bohren’s ruling. Wisconsin Court of Appeals District 2 concluded that Snapchat’s terms of service notify all users that their accounts are monitored for CSAM material, which, if found, would be turned over to law enforcement. During Tuesday’s oral arguments, Wisconsin Department of Justice attorney Michael Conway argued that an exception to the warrant requirement allowed law enforcement to view the material without a warrant. Conway argued that if the government had a “virtual certainty” that looking at the file would not reveal anything else of significance not conveyed by the private party, its conduct was appropriate and permitted. Conway said the case differs from instances where law enforcement officers search a cell phone or container. The government didn’t search a phone or a file, he said. Instead, “the government searched a photo that was provided to it by a third party.” “Snapchat didn’t invite law enforcement to open a whole account,” he said. “The cases are a little frustrating and not particularly clear,” said Justice Brian Hagedorn about the relevant case law. Crawford asked whether the state was asking the court to “narrowly authorize the government to conduct additional searches without a warrant when there is a cyber tip for child sexual abuse specifically” and questioned why the court would make such a distinction. The second case heard by the court presented similar questions. The case arose when Google presented the Jefferson County Sheriff’s Office with evidence of CSAM held in a Google Photos account owned by Andres Rauch Sharak. Again, a detective with the sheriff’s office viewed the material without a warrant. In addition to making arguments similar to those made earlier by Gasper, Sharak’s attorney, Bradley Novreske, argued that Google’s monitoring for CSAM amounted to government action because Google would not endeavor to look for the material on its own. “This isn’t voluntary for them,” said Novreske. He argued that the federal government functionally compelled the searches, “indirectly deputizing” online platforms that enjoy immunity for content created by individual users and the privilege of policing themselves. Novreske referred to a group of federal laws known as the “Protect the Children Act.” Those laws do not themselves compel searches, but he argued that they effectively compel online platforms to act like the government in looking for CSAM. “How many courts have said what you’re asking us to say?” Justice Annette Ziegler asked. “No courts have been asked to,” replied Novreske. He acknowledged that whether online platforms are “functionally deputized” to search for illicit material is an issue of first impression nationwide. No one law specifically says that online platforms are required to look for CSAM. In fact, one of the laws encompassed by the Protect the Children Act specifically says that such searches are not mandatory. “I don’t understand how we could disregard a provision that explicitly says searches are not mandated and find that some combination of other provisions or regulations does create such a requirement,” said Crawford. |
Donate
Help WJI advocate for justice in Wisconsin
|
RSS Feed