By Gretchen Schuldt Senate Bill 125/Assembly Bill 119 – Teaching police interaction etiquette the way police want it Law enforcement would help develop a model school curriculum on how students should properly interact with law enforcement, which school districts then would be required to teach unless they specifically opted out, under a bill introduced by Republicans. The bill would require the Department of Public Instruction, in consultation with law enforcement, to "promulgate rules to develop a model curriculum for pupils in grades 5 to 12 to instruct pupils on how to interact with law enforcement with mutual cooperation and respect." The bill does not provide funding to school districts to cover the costs of developing the curriculum. It does require that the lessons include the role and responsibilities of law enforcement officials in providing for public safety, the responsibilities of an individual to comply with directives from law enforcement officials, and the legal rights of an individual in interactions with law enforcement officials. It also would require school boards and charter school operators to teach the curriculum in at least two grades in fifth through eighth grades and two grades from ninth through 12th grades. School districts and charter schools could opt out. A charter school governing body could elect not to include the language in its operating contract. School boards would be required to adopt a resolution specifically opting out of the curriculum. Legislative sponsors of this bill are listed in the table at the end of this post. Senate Bill 169/Assembly Bill 180 – Employment hotline This bill would require the Department of Workforce Development to establish and staff a hotline to assist employers who want to hire people with criminal records, according to notes attached to the bill that were provided by the Joint Legislative Council. DWD would provide information and assistance relating to available incentives and programs for hiring people with records, including those on certain work-release programs. The bill was introduced by the Legislative Council on behalf of its Study Committee on Increasing Offender Employment. Senate Bill 170/Assembly Bill 181 – Earned release expansion More incarcerated people could be eligible for the earned release program under this bill. It would make eligible some inmates who complete an employment readiness training program, defined as an "education, job training, employment, or other equivalent evidence-based program intended to lead to employment and reduce recidivism." Under the earned release program, incarcerated people can serve larger portions of their sentences under community supervision, instead of remaining incarcerated. The law now limits eligibility to incarcerated people who complete a substance abuse program. There are, unsurprisingly, many conditions attached to the proposal. To qualify, a person's conviction cannot be for a violent crime and an individual cannot be released from incarceration before serving at least two-thirds of the prison portion of a bifurcated sentence. Like the substance abuse earned release program, the employment readiness version would require the sentencing court to find the individual qualified for the program. The earned release training program, however, would allow inmates, with DOC's approval, to later petition the court for eligibility. The bill was introduced by the Legislative Council on behalf of its Study Committee on Increasing Offender Employment. Senate Bill 171/Assembly Bill 182 – Housing help for the formerly incarcerated Landlords would gain a degree of immunity from lawsuits and would be eligible for state funding of repairs for damage caused by recently released inmates who hold a certificate of rental readiness issued by the Department of Corrections, under this bill. DOC would be required to include rental readiness training in its prelease programming. The bill authorizes the Wisconsin Housing and Economic Development Authority to run a bond program to fund repairs for damage to rental property caused by a certificate holder. Coverage would be limited to a single lease period, not to exceed one year, and only during the first two years after a person's release. Landlords who lease to certificate holders would be immune from civil liability (lawsuits) "for the death of or injury to any individual or any damages caused by intentional acts or omissions of the tenant who holds the certification of rental readiness," according to the proposed bill. The bill was introduced by the Legislative Council on behalf of its Study Committee on Increasing Offender Employment. Senate Bill 172/Assembly Bill 183 – Community reentry centers The Department of Corrections would be required to contract with at least one nonprofit organization to establish a community reentry center for people reentering the community from prison, according to the bill. The center or centers would provide assistance and services as listed below, according to the bill. 1. Health: assistance in identifying and accessing appropriate health care services and mental health services based on the individual's needs. 2. Identification: assistance in obtaining identification documents such as the individual's birth certificate, social security card, state identification card, or driver's license, if eligible, including any necessary forms and instructions. 3. Financial: assistance in creating a bank account, including obtaining a debit card at the time of the individual's initial contact with the community reentry center. 4. Housing: assistance in obtaining access to emergency housing options for homeless individuals and contacting landlords that rent to formerly incarcerated individuals. 5. Employment: assistance in creating a resume, electronically submitting the resume where needed, and contacting relevant employment agencies to secure employment. 6. Education: assistance in identifying whether and how to proceed with the next level of education or vocational training the individual may want or need. 7. Supervision: a secured office space for department supervision agents to meet with individuals on community supervision. The bill does not fund any centers. The bill was introduced by the Legislative Council on behalf of its Study Committee on Increasing Offender Employment. Senate Bill 191/Assembly Bill 202 – Occupational licenses and criminal records The state agency that helps determine whether individuals are qualified for occupational licenses would be allowed to overlook certain arrests and convictions when investigating whether a person's criminal record is substantially related to the work covered by the requested credentials. The Department of Safety and Professional Services is allowed to refuse or revoke credentials if a person's crimes are substantially related to the licensed activity covered by the license. Under the bill, DSPS, while investigating, could overlook:
The bill was introduced by the Legislative Council on behalf of its Study Committee on Occupational Licenses. Senate Bill 230/Assembly Bill 237 – Psych evaluation: Another pre-release requirement This bill requires incarcerated people to undergo a psychological evaluation before being released on parole or discretionary extended supervision. The authority considering whether to grant the release would be required to consider the report in its deliberations. The bill also would require the Department of Corrections to send notice to victims at least 30 days before an incarcerated person's release on parole and supervision. It specifies that victims are allowed to make oral statements and use visual aids at court hearings related to a person's eligibility for parole or discretionary extended supervision. The bill grants law enforcement the power to notify the public of an individual's release into the community if the sheriff or police chief believes that is necessary to protect the safety of the public. Legislative sponsors of this bill are listed in the table below. Bill sponsors
0 Comments
By Gretchen Schuldt The Court of Appeals this week reversed a judge's decision in a case in which the state and the defense, in a relatively rare occurrence, agreed that the judge messed up. Winnebago Circuit Judge Daniel J. Bissett denied Peter John Long's motion to reopen a case after Long argued that his lawyer told him that the default judgment he accepted for refusing to take sobriety tests would result in a three-year suspension of his driver's license. Instead, it resulted in a lifetime license revocation. "The state believes Long is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his motion because he pled sufficient facts which, if true, entitle him to relief," District II Court of Appeals Judge Shelley A. Grogan wrote in her decision. "This court agrees and reverses and remands for an evidentiary hearing." Long was arrested for Operating While Intoxicated – 10th offense after police saw his motorcycle on a curb and found Long sleeping in a ditch about 300 yards away. Long refused to perform field sobriety tests or take a chemical test, according to the decision. The OWI case against Long was dismissed after a preliminary hearing because a court commissioner found that the state did not provide sufficient evidence to establish probable cause, Grogan wrote. The case against him for refusing the tests, however, went on. "According to Long’s motion, his attorney advised him that he could simply ‘default’ (not show up) and that the only consequence would be a three-year revocation of his driver’s license," Grogan wrote. The Department of Transportation, however, notified Long after the default judgment was entered that his license would be revoked permanently. Long, representing himself, sought to reopen the judgment, writing that his acceptance of the default was “due to incorrect advice and mistake by paid counsel.” Bissett refused the request, saying there was "no basis stated" to reopen the case. Long tried again, filing another motion with greater detail. Bissett again denied it, this time by stamping it "denied." Long filed for reconsideration; Bissett denied that request without explanation. "Long alleged facts that, if true, warrant relief, and therefore the circuit court should have held a hearing on his motion," Grogan wrote. The state, in its appellate brief, agreed. Lifetime driver's license revocation was a collateral consequence of a refusal finding, Winnebago County Assistant District Attorney Adam J. Levin wrote. When a defendant is misadvised of even collateral consequences of a conviction, "Wisconsin courts have permitted defendants to withdraw pleas that were based on a misunderstanding of the consequences," he said. Besides alleging that his lawyer provided incorrect information about the consequences of refusing the tests, Long argued that that the underlying OWI was dismissed for lack of probable cause, Grogan said. "He believes that as a result, he has a meritorious defense to the refusal citation," she wrote. "Based on these facts, Long is entitled to a hearing on his motion." By Gretchen Schuldt
A bill to reform the state's restrictive expungement law is supported by a broad range of groups, from the conservative Americans for Prosperity to the progressive ACLU. Versions of the bill, Senate Bill 38/Assembly Bill 37 have been introduced but died in past sessions. They all would allow more people to have their criminal records expunged. "The expungement laws as currently written are outdated and actually increase likelihood of recidivism and family separation by unnecessarily complicating the opportunity of expungement for nonviolent offenders," AFP-Wisconsin Supervisor of Grassroots Operations Jamiroquan Kittler said in testimony to the Senate's Judiciary and Public Safety Committee. "Criminal records live on well after a person has done their time, functioning as a penalty that follows people forever as they navigate a world in which meaningful opportunities for growth and self-improvement are closed off to them," the ACLU said. Under current law, a record can be expunged if the maximum potential prison sentence is six years or less, the crime involved was not a violent felony, the person committing the crime was under 25 years old, and the person had never been previously convicted of any felony. In addition, expungement must be requested when a person is sentenced, meaning the judge is expected to decide whether the person is eligible for expunction before there is a track record of the person's post-conviction behavior. If the judge does not state at the time of sentencing that expungement will be allowed, the person cannot apply for it later. Under the new bill, the age restriction would be lifted. Certain other restrictions would remain, including those related to past felonies, violent felonies, and the six-year maximum prison sentence. The law, if passed, would also make some offenses ineligible for expungement, including traffic crimes, violating a domestic abuse injunction or restraining order, criminal trespass, and criminal damage to a business. Eligibility for expungement still could be granted or denied by the judge at sentencing, but if the court does not grant eligibility, the person could petition for expungement after completing the imposed sentence. If the petition is denied, the person would not be eligible to file another petition for two years and then must pay the county $100. A person would be limited to a maximum of two petitions per crime. Only one expungement per person would be allowed. The bill would be retroactive to include those convicted of crimes before its adoption. "For those who say this bill is 'soft on crime,' I challenge that," State Sen. Rachael Cabral-Guevara (R-Appleton) said in testimony. Cabral-Guevara is the lead Senate sponsor of the bill. "This bill is about providing a second chance to those who have already paid their debt to society. These are people who now actively contribute to their communities. This is not a hand-out, it is a hand-up." And State Rep. David Steffen (R-Green Bay), the Assembly author, said the "support for reforming Wisconsin’s outdated expungement law has only continued to grow as employers grapple with growing workforce needs." The Badger Institute said the state's expungement law "forces judges to make poor decisions with limited information, encourages uneven and often nonsensical administration of justice, and does little to help employers, victims, or low-level, non-violent offenders we should all want in jobs rather than cells." The bill includes procedures that are the product of input from a variety of stakeholders, said State Rep. Evan Goyke (D-Milwaukee). "The process balances pressures on caseloads with the individual rights of victims and defendants. The result is a process that ensures victim input through the district attorney’s office, while judges retain discretion to be the ultimate decision makers," he said. Registering in favor of the bill were AFP, the ACLU, the Badger Institute, the Apartment Association of Southeastern Wisconsin, the Badger State Sheriffs' Association, the City of Milwaukee, Dane County, the League of Women Voters of Wisconsin, Milwaukee County, the Milwaukee Police Association, NAIOP Wisconsin (a commercial real estate group), National Association of Independent Business, the Outagamie County Board, the State Bar of Wisconsin, United Migrant Opportunity Services, the Waukesha County Business Alliance, the Wisconsin Catholic Conference, the Wisconsin Chiefs of Police Association, the Wisconsin Counties Association, the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, the Wisconsin Economic Development Association, Wisconsin Independent Businesses, Wisconsin Professional Police Association, and the Wisconsin Restaurant Association. No organization has registered in opposition to the bill, which is pending in both the Senate and Assembly. By Gretchen Schuldt Legislators are proposing to change the school strip search law to make much of girls' breasts available for inspection while restricting school officials' ability to touch or look at certain body parts covered by underwear. Also pending: One bill to toughen the penalties for felon in possession of a firearm and another allowing traffic enforcement via cameras in Milwaukee. A table showing the sponsors of each of the bills is at the bottom of this post. Senate Bill 111/Assembly Bill 108 – Girls' breasts up for grabs in school strip-search proposal The underwear-clad "private areas" of students' bodies would be off limits to searches by school officials, under a Republican-backed bill, but most of girls' breasts would be fair game. It is now a misdemeanor for school officials or their agents to conduct strip searches of students. A strip search is "a search in which a person's genitals, pubic area, buttock, or anus, or a female person's breast, is uncovered and either is exposed to view or is touched by a person conducting the search." The bill would change the prohibited conduct to searches in which a student's "private area" is uncovered and either is exposed to view or is touched by the searcher. "Private area" is defined as the "naked or underwear-clad genitalia, anus, buttocks, or female areola or nipple." The areola is the pigmented skin around the nipple. The bill, according to its language, would leave the rest of the breast available for a strip search. Senate Bill 106/Assembly Bill 58 – Minimum mandatory sentence for felon in possession Some people convicted of felon in possession of a gun would face harsher penalties, including a mandatory minimum of five years in prison and a longer maximum prison sentence, under a bill pending in the state Legislature. The Assembly's Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee last week recommended approval of the bill by a 10-5 vote (see the table below). The measure would impose the mandatory minimum of five years of incarceration and five years of supervised release on those previously convicted of a violent felony who are found guilty of felon in possession. It also would raise the maximum prison term for those people to 7½ years in prison and five years of supervised release. The bill originally applied the five-year minimum to all people convicted of felon in possession, whether or not the previous felony was violent. The original bill also did not increase the maximum penalty. Registering against the bill were the ACLU of Wisconsin and Wisconsin Gun Owners Inc. Registering in favor were the Badger State Sheriffs' Association, the Milwaukee Police Association, the National Rifle Association of America, and the Wisconsin Chiefs of Police Association. Senate Bill 107/Assembly Bill 85 – Speeding and stop light camera enforcement in Milwaukee Milwaukee could use cameras to ticket egregious speeders and stop signal violators, under a bill pending in the Legislature. The bill also would allow the city to use cameras to identify those who "fail to stop properly" at red traffic signals. Law enforcement is now not allowed to use radar plus photos to catch speeders. The bill would allow just Milwaukee to use those methods to ticket the owners of vehicles driven at least 20 mph over the speed limit. It would not be a defense for owners ticketed through cameras to claim they were not driving the car at the time of the violation. Allowable defenses would include, according to the Legislative Reference Bureau summary of the bill,
The Milwaukee Police Department would receive any forfeitures collected through the use of the cameras. Many of the same provisions, including allowable defenses, apply to the proposed use of red-light cameras. There is no provision for a 90-day period of issuing warnings rather than tickets, however. The use of red-light cameras would be limited to high-crash areas and to no more than five intersections in any aldermanic district. BILL SPONSORS
By Gretchen Schuldt The definition of "serious harm" in a bill designed to impose cash bail on more people is so broad it encompasses "nearly all possible situations," a representative of the State Public Defender's Office told an Assembly committee recently. "Serious harm" as defined in Assembly Bill 54 includes "personal physical pain or injury, illness, any impairment of physical condition, or death, including mental anguish or emotional harm." The definition includes terms not found elsewhere in state law, said Adam Plotkin, SPD's legislative liaison. "Personal pain" or "injury" "could be broadly and differently interpreted to mean that even minor pain could be considered grounds to set cash bail," he said. Plotkin testified at a public hearing on the bill held before the Assembly's Judiciary Committee. The committee last week recommended recommended, 6-1, adoption of the bill. The measure is a companion to a proposed amendment to the state constitution that voters will consider in the spring election. That proposed amendment, marketed as a "reform," would allow judges more discretion in determining who must post cash bail to be released from pre-trial custody.
The proposed amendment would require judges to consider four new factors when determining whether cash bail should be imposed. They are the seriousness of the alleged offense, whether there is a past conviction for a violent crime, the need to protect members of the public from serious harm, and the need to prevent the intimidation of witnesses. The bill would define as "violent crimes" offenses such as criminal damage to property, criminal trespassing, disorderly conduct, or violation of an injunction, Plotkin said. "These...seem to go well beyond the stated intent of the amendment of focusing on violent crimes," he said. The definitions "undermine the presumption of innocence and present issues related to excessive bail under the 8th amendment," he said. " ‘Excessive’ isn’t just a high cash bail amount, it’s a sum total of the impact. A low-level charge combined with even a low level of cash bail amount that is prohibitive of release can be excessive." Plotkin also warned of the impacts to the court system if the bill is adopted. "This will increase the pretrial jail population and the number of people who have non-monetary conditions imposed," he said. "It will increase the number of speedy trial demands. Both of these changes will place a significant burden on an already overtaxed criminal justice system." The Wisconsin Chiefs of Police Association testified in favor of the bill. "As members of law enforcement, we have witnessed violent offenders who were released from custody before the reports of their crimes were even completed. We have also heard from victims of crimes, who ask us in fear of how they can remain safe when their attackers are already back out on the streets," the organization said in prepared testimony. Registering in favor of the bill were Americans for Prosperity, the Milwaukee Police Association, the Wisconsin Chiefs of Police Association Inc., and the Wisconsin State Lodge Fraternal Order of Police. Registering against the bill was the ACLU of Wisconsin. By Gretchen Schuldt Republican legislators are proposing to block from voting more people with felony records. The bill is heavily weighted against people struggling with poverty. Also introduced recently were more bills calling for new or harsher penalties. The sponsors of the individual bills are shown in the table at the bottom of this post. Senate Bill 69 /Assembly Bill 76 – Disenfranchising more people A bill that would likely disenfranchise thousands of additional people convicted of felonies is garnering opposition from a variety of civil rights and voting organizations. State law now restores voting rights to people with felony records after they complete their terms of incarceration and probation, parole, or extended supervision. The Republican-sponsored bill would require that a person with a felony conviction also "must have paid all fines, costs, fees, surcharges, and restitution, and have completed any court-ordered community service, imposed in connection with the crime," according to the Legislative Reference Bureau summary. The bill also would require the state Elections Commission to notify those affected when their voting rights are restored. Currently, the Department of Corrections provides the notification. All Voting Is Local Action, ACLU of Wisconsin, Common Cause in Wisconsin, Wisconsin Conservation Voters, and the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign have registered against the measure. The Democracy Campaign called it a "modern-day poll tax." Senate Bill 72/Assembly Bill 78 – Increasing penalties for crimes against adults at risk An "adult at risk" is defined in Wisconsin statute as "any adult who has a physical or mental condition that substantially impairs his or her ability to care for his or her needs and who has experienced, is currently experiencing, or is at risk of experiencing abuse, neglect, self-neglect, or financial exploitation." This bill would increase the penalty for any second-degree sexual assault against an adult at risk from a maximum of 40 years in prison and/or a $100,000 fine to 60 years in prison. The bill also would allow increased penalties for other crimes against adults at risk. If the penalty is a year or less in prison, it could be increased to two years. A maximum penalty of up to 10 years could be increased by four years, and a maximum of more than 10 years could be increased by up to six years. Penalties that now apply to physical abuse of an elder person would apply to abuse of an adult at risk. All of the increased penalties would apply whether or not the perpetrator knew the victim was an adult at risk. The bill also would allow freezing the assets of a person accused of a financial crime against a person at risk. Assets worth the full amount of the amount at issue could be subject to the freeze "for purposes of preserving the property for future payment of restitution to the crime victim." The bill also would allow an adult at risk seeking certain types of restraining orders to appear in court by phone or by audiovisual means rather than in person. Senate Bill 73/Assembly Bill 79 – Prostitution surcharge Judges would impose a $5,000 surcharge on people convicted of patronizing or soliciting prostitutes, pandering, or keeping a place of prostitution, under this bill. The money would be used for treatment and services for sex-trafficking victims and for law enforcement related to internet crimes against children. The bill does not indicate how the money would be divided between those categories. Senate Bill 101/Assembly Bill 68 – Higher penalty for drug-induced homicide The Assembly's Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee has recommended approval of this bill, which would raise from 40 years to 60 years the maximum prison time for making or supplying certain drugs that lead to the death of another person (known as the "Len Bias" law). The vote was 13-2, as follows: BILL SPONSORS
Research on brain development of young adults could have been presented in 1997, appeals court says9/9/2022 By Gretchen Schuldt A judge erred when he used new research into the brain development of young adults to grant Jan. 1, 2023, parole eligibility to a man previously sentenced to life without parole, the state Court of Appeals has ruled. Existing case law prohibited Outagamie County Circuit Judge John DesJardins, now retired, from using the research as a “new factor” in Jonathan Liebzeit’s case “because the research and its conclusions were well known at the time of Liebzeit’s sentencing in 1997,” Appellate Judge Gregory B. Gill wrote for the three-judge District III Court of Appeals panel. He was joined in the opinion by Appellate Judges Lisa K. Stark and Thomas M. Hruz. DesJardins sentenced Liebzeit in 1997 to life without parole for his role in the 1996 murder of Alex Schaffer. Liebzeit, who had just turned 19, and two other men, Daniel Mischler and James Thompson, lured Schaffer into sewer tunnels where Liebzeit hit him repeatedly with a baseball bat, including in the head. The other two men held Schaffer in a pool of water until he stopped moving. The medical examiner determined that Schaffer died by a combination of drowning and blunt force trauma. The state Department of Corrections, in a pre-sentence report, noted Liebzeit’s long history of drug abuse, particularly with inhalants; his participation in a drug and alcohol treatment program; and his failed effort to get admitted to Winnebago Mental Health Institute due to suicidal tendencies. In 2019, 22 years after sentencing Liebzeit, DesJardins attended a judicial education seminar, where he learned about new research on brain development in emerging adults. He later wrote to Liebzeit’s appellate counsel and the state “suggesting that a sentence modification may be appropriate based on new scientific research…that was not available at the time of the 1997 sentencing,” Gill wrote. Liebzeit’s lawyer, Rex R. Anderegg, filed such a motion, citing both the new research and Liebzeit’s brain damage stemming from inhalant use. Information about the brain damage, included in a separate report concerning Liebzeit’s drug treatment, was not presented to the court at sentencing. DesJardins held a hearing, Gill wrote. “The court concluded that Liebzeit had proven by clear and convincing evidence that both the new scientific research on brain development in emerging adults, and Liebzeit’s brain damage resulting from his own inhalant use constituted new factors,” Gill wrote. DesJardins found that “the impact the brain damage may have had on Liebzeit’s impulse control was relevant to whether Liebzeit was likely to be successfully rehabilitated,” Gill said. DesJardins also found that “new scientific research on brain development in emerging adults had found that individuals between 18 and 21 years old function closer to adolescents aged 13 to 17, than adults aged 22 to 25 years old.” DesJardins eventually granted the sentence modification making Liebzeit eligible for parole Jan. 1. His case still would have to be considered by the Parole Commission. The appeals court, however, agreed with the state that nothing showed that Liebzeit’s inhalant use contributed to his impulsivity. “At best,” Gill wrote, “the (drug treatment) report shows that his brain damage might have affected his concentration. But the crimes for which he was convicted were not impulsive crimes caused by an inability to concentrate.” The crime was not impulsive, but planned, Gill said. DesJardins found at the time of sentencing that Liebzeit could not be rehabilitated. Liebzeit’s “new science” argument fails because under state Supreme Court precedent, Gill wrote, “the research cannot constitute a new factor…because the conclusions reached by the research were well known when Liebzeit was originally sentenced in 1997.” Brown County bail-jumping charges left nonviolent drug offender facing more than a century in prison6/7/2022 To study bail jumping in Wisconsin, WJI and the Mastantuono Coffee & Thomas law firm are looking county by county at 2021 bail-jumping charges. Which counties are charging bail jumping the most? Who are some of the defendants? What happens to those cases? We'll report the statistics from individual counties and tell you the stories from randomly chosen cases. Brown County Total number of cases with bail-jumping charges: 1,233* Total number of misdemeanor and felony cases: 3,346 Percent of misdemeanor and felony cases that include bail-jumping charges: 37% Total number of felony cases with bail-jumping charges: 959** Total number of all felony cases: 2,178 Percent of felony cases that include bail-jumping charges: 44% Total number of misdemeanor cases with bail-jumping charges: 274 Total number of all misdemeanor cases: 1,168 Percent of misdemeanor cases that include bail-jumping charges: 23% Largest number of bail-jumping charges issued in a single case: 12 Number of felony bail-jumping charges issued: 1,465 Number of misdemeanor bail-jumping charges issued: 845 * Excludes three criminal traffic misdemeanor cases that include bail-jumping charges. Criminal traffic charges are not included in this analysis. **Felony cases can include felony or misdemeanor bail-jumping charges or both; misdemeanor cases can include only misdemeanor bail-jumping charges. Case counts reported as of January 2022. Case file
This is how piled-on bail-jumping charges meant a nonviolent, sometimes homeless serial drug offender named Adren ended up facing a possible century or more in prison. Bail-jumping charges long have been criticized by defense attorneys as a hammer used by prosecutors to coerce defendants into plea agreements they might otherwise reject. Other critics argue that the charges are filed to puff up caseload numbers, putting local prosecutors' offices in a better position to ask for more money and staff. Prosecutors reject those arguments. Before looking at decades in prison (spoiler alert: he didn't get them), Adren, now 31, had a drug problem and a history. The 2021 part of that history started when Adren was the passenger in a car pulled over in February by an Ashwaubenon police officer because its license plates didn't match those of any car on the road. Adren had been convicted of felony possession of methamphetamine the year before in a case that involved .02 grams of the drug, according to the criminal complaint. Brown County Circuit Judge Donald R. Zuidmulder sentenced him in November 2020 to 30 months' probation. He also was convicted, in a separate case, of misdemeanor obstructing an officer and misdemeanor bail jumping. He was homeless at the time he was charged, according to the criminal complaint. Zuidmulder sentenced Adren to two years' probation in that case. Adren was charged again in December 2020 with felony meth possession and misdemeanor paraphernalia possession. He was out on a $5,000 signature bond when stopped by the Ashwaubenon officer. The driver of the car Adren was in did not stop for almost a quarter of a mile after police tried to pull it over, according to the criminal complaint. That led an officer to request a canine sniff of the car (another problematic police practice). The dog indicated the presence of drugs and a search ensued, turning up some meth in Adren's sock and a meth pipe. The complaint does not list the amount of meth involved. Adren was charged with meth possession as a repeater, a designation that could add up to four years to the 3½-year sentence maximum. He also was charged with felony bail jumping as a repeater, which could add four years to the six-year maximum sentence. Felony bail jumping occurs when a person out on bond on a felony charge violates the conditions of that bond. Misdemeanor bail jumping occurs when a person out on bond on a misdemeanor charge violates the conditions of that bond. A bail-jumping offense may not by itself be a crime. Missing a court date, violating a local ordinance, or having a drink could all be bail-jumping offenses if bond conditions prohibit those things. Misdemeanor bail jumping carries a maximum penalty of nine months in jail and a $10,000 fine; felony bail jumping carries a maximum penalty of six years in prison and a $10,000 fine. Under Wisconsin law, a person charged with a crime can be considered a repeater if the person was convicted of a felony during the five-year period immediately preceding the commission of the new alleged crime or if the person was convicted of a misdemeanor on three separate occasions during that same period. Adren qualified as a repeater because he had been convicted of felony meth possession. He qualified for the felony bail jumping because he was out on bond in the December 2020 meth case. In all, he faced 17½ years in prison on the new charges, according to the complaint. Brown County Court Commissioner Cynthia Vopal set a $5,000 signature bond. Adren at first refused to sign the bond, but did so three days later, according to online court records. In April, 2021, Adren caught another case that exposed him to an additional 22 years and nine months behind bars. Bail-jumping charges were again involved. The underlying crime? For a brief time, he misidentified himself to a Green Bay police officer. Police were dispatched to a Shell gas station to check out a suspicious vehicle that had been parked for 30 minutes. Adren, along with at least two other people, was ordered out of the car. "I asked the male was his name was (sic) and he informed me it was Michal...Smith" and that he was born in 1990," the criminal complaint said. "The male was seated in the back seat of my patrol vehicle on the passenger's side. The male informed me that his his names (sic) actually was Adren --." Adren was charged with misdemeanor obstructing an officer and two counts of felony bail jumping, all as repeaters. He was accused again of violating the bond conditions of the December meth / paraphernalia case. He also was charged with violating the bond conditions of the February meth / bail-jumping case. The maximum prison terms were two years and nine months for the obstructing charge and 10 years each on the bail-jumping charges. Brown County Court Commissioner Chad Resar set a $1,000 cash bail on April 13. Circuit Judge John P. Zakowski reduced the bond to $250 on July 23 and reduced it again, to $100, on Sept. 24. The $100 was posted on Oct. 7. Meanwhile, in May, Judge Zuidmulder revoked Adren's probation in his first methamphetamine case and the misdemeanor bail-jumping and obstructing case and sentenced him to 6 months in jail with work release privileges. In November, Adren was busted with a whopping 1.65 grams of marijuana in the car he was driving. Police also found a pipe and a grinder, a tool used to break cannabis into smaller and consistently sized pieces. He was charged with possession of marijuana as a repeater, possession of paraphernalia as a repeater, and three counts of felony bail jumping – for violating his bond in each of his 2021 cases – all as a repeater. He faced a maximum of 34 years and seven months in prison and fines totaling more than $30,000. He was represented in his cases by the State Public Defender's office, an indication of poverty. Brown County Court Commissioner Paul E. Burke set a $1,500 cash bond. Adren did not post it. Prosecutors in November charged Adren again, this time for selling four grams of meth to a confidential informant in two separate deals that occurred the previous March and April. This time, charged with two counts of meth delivery as a repeater, and four counts of felony bail jumping, he faced up to 75½ years in prison. Burke set a $5,000 cash bond. Adren remained in jail. He faced more than a century in prison on the two November cases alone. In May and June of this year, Adren moved forward with his outstanding cases in a way that could resolve them without any prison time at all. He was accepted into drug treatment court. Under that program, non-violent drug offenders are placed on three years of probation with 90 days of conditional jail time either imposed or stayed. Their cases remain in court for at least a year before the participants graduate. He also entered into a deferred prosecution agreement in the almost-35-year marijuana case. Under the agreement, he pleaded guilty to one count of felony bail jumping with sentencing deferred for three years. If he successfully completes drug court and probation, the case will be dismissed. By Gretchen Schuldt The Wisconsin Justice Initiative on Tuesday called for Milwaukee officials to develop and adopt enforcement guidelines and accountability measures for the recently announced stepped-up use of the city's curfew ordinance against juveniles and their parents. "We have seen in the past valid concerns raised about police practices by the ACLU’s stop-and-frisk lawsuit," WJI President Craig Johnson said in a letter to Mayor Cavalier Johnson, Police Chief Jeffrey B. Norman and the Common Council. "Any policy that increases the number of police-citizen encounters and places too much reliance on police discretion raises concerns that these practices will again prove problematic to certain groups." The ACLU suit resulted in the Milwaukee Police Department and the city agreeing to reforms in pedestrian and vehicle stop and search procedures. The ACLU presented strong evidence of racial disparities in who was stopped and searched. Mayor Johnson and Chief Norman announced the increased curfew enforcement last week, in the wake of the mass shooting near the Deer District after a Bucks' game. No juveniles have been arrested in connection with the shooting, and Norman said the stronger curfew enforcement was meant to protect them. WJI's Johnson said the move could worsen police-community relations unless "the city adopts and publishes accountability measures and enforcement guidelines." "Curfew enforcement guidelines should make clear how police will enforce the curfew and who is at risk of receiving citations," Craig Johnson wrote. "Is a 16-year-old making their way home from a Brewers’ game going to get a ticket? How about a youth waiting at a bus stop after work?" The city's primary curfew ordinance makes it illegal for anyone 16 or under to "congregate, loiter, wander, stroll, stand or play in or upon the public streets, highways, roads, alleys, parks, public buildings, places of amusement and entertainment, places of employment, vacant lots or any public places in the city either on foot or in or upon any conveyance being driven or parked thereon." Violations can bring forfeitures of $100-$200. Parents and guardians can be cited if they "suffer or permit or by inefficient control to allow" violations by minors. There are exceptions to the prohibitions. A youth can be out and about while with a parent or guardian or when "exercising first amendment rights protected by the United States constitution or the Wisconsin constitution, including freedom of speech, the free exercise of religion, and the right of assembly," according to the ordinance. A parent or guardian will not be held liable for any violation if they have filed with the police a missing persons report regarding the youth.
"How will an officer determine whether a young person qualifies for one of the exemptions in the ordinance?" Craig Johnson asked, adding, "What are the standards for deciding what parents are cited and when?" Craig Johnson cited the city's "contributing to truancy" ordinance as an "object lesson in the need for enforcement standards." In 1995, when lobbying for such an ordinance, then-Police Chief Philip Arreola said he was concerned about adults and businesses who "were responsible for contributing to the students (sic) absence from school by hosting parties and/or allowing students to congregate/loiter on their premises.” The contributing to truancy ordinance, since then, however, has been used mostly against Black women, Johnson said. "From 2015 through September 2020, according to Municipal Court statistics, 94% of contributing-to- delinquency citations were issued to women, 62% to Black people, 25% to Hispanic people, and 11% to Whites," he wrote. "That disproportionate caseload suggests inequitable enforcement." "How will MPD ensure that police equitably enforce the curfew ordinances?" he asked. "Is MPD willing to publicly report the demographics and ages of those cited?" He also asked whether businesses would be subject to curfew ordinances that apply specifically to them. One ordinance, for example, requires venues with a public entertainment license to announce an approaching curfew 20 minutes before it takes effect. "All entertainment shall cease for the 20-minute period prior to curfew," the ordinance says. Violations carry forfeitures of $500 to $2,000. It also is generally illegal for a business to allow anyone under 17 to enter or stay on the premises after curfew, and hotels, motels, and rooming houses are prohibited from allowing anyone under 18 to "visit, loiter, idle, wander or stroll in any portion of such" business from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. Violations of that ordinance carries forfeitures of $100 to $200. By Gretchen Schuldt A man who did not have a chance to cross examine the officer who issued him a citation or to present evidence on a new charge determined by a judge is entitled to a new trial, a state appeals court ruled Tuesday. District 1 Court of Appeals Judge Timothy G. Dugan did not even decide the case on the issue raised by defendant Roosevelt Cooper, Jr. – that he was denied discovery – but instead relied on Milwaukee County's recognition of errors in Cooper's trial. "As the County acknowledged in its supplemental brief, '[a]t no point throughout the trial was Cooper afforded the opportunity to question or cross-examine' the officer and 'Cooper was denied his right to trial,' ” Dugan wrote. "A review of the record confirms the County’s characterization of the proceedings." Cooper was cited in December 2020 for reckless driving / endangering safety. The officer who issued the citation testified at trial before Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Jonathan Richards that the officer observed Cooper speeding and making multiple lane changes while close to other vehicles. The officer said Cooper was driving about 80 mph in a 55-mph zone. The officer's dash cam video showed that Cooper drove on a non-traffic area of the roadway, changed lanes without signaling, and drove faster than the cars around his, Dugan wrote. Cooper said he swerved into the non-traffic area to avoid an accident with a car in front of him when its driver slammed on the brakes. The video, however, was never moved into evidence and Dugan said in a footnote that Cooper was not under oath when he began explaining his actions. "It was not until the county started questioning Cooper following Cooper's explanation of the video that Cooper was put under oath," he wrote. At the end of the bench trial, Richards said he could not see where Cooper endangered safety, but that Cooper was speeding, passed six cars, and drove in the non-traffic area, Dugan wrote. The judge found Cooper guilty of unreasonable and impudent speed. "The county expressed confusion over the finding, and the clerk interrupted saying that Cooper was not charged with speeding," Dugan wrote. The county said it could amend the charge to unreasonable and imprudent speed "and over Cooper’s objection, the trial court accepted the amended charge and found Cooper guilty" of the charge. Richards ordered Cooper to pay a $100 forfeiture, according to online court records. The county, in its appeals briefing, said a judge has the power to amend a charge to conform to the evidence, but that the court also must find that the parties consent to the change, Dugan wrote. That is also state Supreme Court precedent, Dugan said. "The county...concedes that the trial court failed to make any finding that Cooper consented to the amended charge, and in fact, the county maintains that Cooper was clear that he did not consent to the amended charge," Dugan said. "The county also concedes that the trial court failed to give the parties an opportunity to present additional evidence to support the amended charge." In addition, "Despite receiving an assurance that he would have an opportunity to question the officer, Cooper received no such opportunity," Dugan wrote. While he is not required to accept the county's concessions, it is appropriate in this case, Dugan said. "As a result, this court concludes that Cooper is entitled to a new trial on the amended charge of unreasonable and imprudent speed," he said. |
Donate
Help WJI advocate for justice in Wisconsin
|