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 owner reports the vehicle stolen either before the offense occurred or within seven days after the violation
• The owner provides the officer with the name and address of the person driving the vehicle at the time of the offense and the person admits to driving it then
• The car is leased to an individual and the lessor provides the identifying information to law enforcement
• The car is owned by a car dealer and was driven by someone on a test drive and the dealer provides identifying information to law enforcement.

The bill also would require the city to issue warnings instead of tickets during the first 90 days of a camera's installation, and post "Photo Enforced" signs to notify drivers of the program. The city also would have to comply with significant reporting requirements.

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.

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:

By Gretchen Schuldt

Milwaukee Mayor Cavalier Johnson and other elected officials indicated support at a public hearing for two measures designed to crack down on reckless driving.

"Reckless driving is a scourge on Milwaukee," Johnson told the Assembly's Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee during a public hearing on the bills.

The city has thus far budgeted $30 million in an effort to make its road safer, he said. 

Reckless driving "is a serious quality-of-life issue," he told the committee.

Johnson said the state had to do more to make safer its own highways in the city, which he called "some of the deadliest roads in the state of Wisconsin."

The first bill, Assembly Bill 55, would increase the forfeiture for first-offense reckless driving from the current range of $25 to $200 to $50 to $400.

The penalty for the second or subsequent offense would jump from the current fine of $40 to $500 to a fine of $100 to $1,000 if the second or subsequent offense is committed within four years. Currently, the increased fine applies only to offenses that occur within one year of the first offense. The additional potential penalty of a year in jail remains unchanged.

There would be additional penalty increases as well.

The second bill, Assembly Bill 56, would allow communities to adopt ordinances allowing police to immediately impound a vehicle used in a reckless driving offense if the driver owns the vehicle and has not fully paid an earlier forfeiture for a reckless driving conviction. 

"Habitual offenders previously had no reason to think twice about reckless driving," said State Rep. Bob Donovan (R-Greenfield), the author of the measures. "This legislation will assist in the removal of the instrumental tool in reckless driving – the vehicle."

Even two-year-olds understand the concepts behind red lights and green lights, State Sen. LaTonya Johnson (D-Milwaukee) said. 

"Unfortunately, in recent years we've suffered a breakdown in these norms with more and more individuals reckless driving without regard for their own lives or anyone else in their path," she said. "Running red lights, stop signs, drag racing on residential streets, driving on sidewalks as well as fleeing police at high rates of speed have become all-too(-)common occurrences and my constituents, my community, and our city are paying for these poorly made decisions with our lives."

In 2020, Johnson said, Milwaukee police issued 3,798 reckless driving citations. In 2021, they issued 4,873 reckless driving citations. In 2020, there were 6,081 hit-and-run incidents, she said. In 2021, there were 17,520 hit-and-runs.

Adopting the bills won't solve the reckless driving problem, she said, "but it will increase the price of putting our communities in danger.  I refuse to let lawlessness take away another innocent life and our cities(') quality of life without me doing my part as an elected official representing to help prevent it from happening." 

"Milwaukee is not alone," the Wisconsin Chiefs of Police Association said in testimony. "The WCPA represents over 800 police executives throughout Wisconsin, and we experience this issue throughout the state. Regardless of size of municipality or location – north, south, east, or west – law enforcement, and the communities we protect, are forced to deal with this issue on a regular basis."

Registering in support of AB55 were the City of Milwaukee, AAA Wisconsin, the League of Wisconsin Municipalities, the Professional Insurance Agents of Wisconsin, the Wisconsin Chiefs of Police Association, and the Wisconsin State Lodge Fraternal Order of Police.

Those same groups registered in favor of AB56, as did the Wisconsin Professional Police Association. 

No group registered opposition to either bill.

By Gretchen Schuldt
​
A bill that would increase penalties for carjacking and make it a crime unto itself won support last week from police and insurance organizations.

"We can all agree that a suspect stealing an unoccupied vehicle parked on the side of the road, while wrong, is far less concerning than a suspect pointing a gun at someone commuting to their job and forcing them out of their vehicle to steal it," said Mark Sette, vice president of the Wisconsin State Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police.

Sette gave testimony during a public hearing on the bill held before the Assembly Judiciary Committee.

The Republican-backed bill would increase the penalty for carjacking by 20 years, from 40 years to 60 years. The bill also would create a separate carjacking offense, something Sette said would "assist the public and the criminal justice system in identifying the true scope of the problem, properly classify these offenses as the violent crimes that they are."

Howard Handler, senior director for strategy, policy and government affairs for the National Insurance Crime Bureau, said 930,000 vehicles were stolen nationwide in 2021, up 17% from the 2019 figure.

"In 2021, Wisconsin experienced a 75 percent increase in stolen vehicles compared to 2019," he said in prepared testimony.

"Beyond the loss to an owner and the resulting financial impacts — including in the form of higher insurance premiums for Wisconsin consumers — vehicle thefts often have serious second-order effects on society," he said. Criminal rings are stealing more cars "as an alternative revenue stream as well as to commit other violent crimes."

The Milwaukee Police Association also testified in favor of the bill.

The Wisconsin Police Chiefs Association and the Fraternal Order of Police registered in favor of the bill. No organization registered in opposition.

By Gretchen Schuldt
​
Legislators, especially Republicans, keep embracing harsher criminal penalties by introducing bills to create new crimes or make harsher sentences for existing offenses. Here are some recent efforts. Authors and sponsors of the measures are shown in the table at the bottom of the post.

Senate Bill 79/Assembly Bill 84 – Prohibiting some people convicted of felonies from possessing vicious dogs

Certain felons would be banned from possessing, controlling, or living with vicious dogs, under this bill. The prohibitions would apply to people convicted of violent felonies, including battery, sexual assault, and drug offenses. Violations would carry different penalties: a simple violation would be punishable by up to a $10,000 fine or and nine months behind bars; a violation that results in a person or animal suffering great bodily harm or death would be punishable by a $10,000 fine and imprisonment for up to 3½ years; and a maximum penalty of six years in prison and a $10,000 fine could be posed if a person suffers great bodily harm or death because the offender knowingly allowed the dog to run loose or failed to take steps to control the dog.

The prohibition would be in effect for as long as the person is on supervision or for 10 years after being released from incarceration, or after conviction if the sentence did not include incarceration, or after a verdict of not guilty of a serious felony by reason of mental disease or defect.

A humane or law enforcement officer would determine if an animal is vicious based on certain criteria: whether the dog, unprovoked, has attacked a person or pet and caused serious injury or death; without justification has at least twice bitten a person or pet without causing serious injury or death; or has behaved in a manner that a reasonable person would believe posed a significant, imminent threat to a person or pet. 

Exceptions to the prohibitions could be granted to people for employment purposes and who file a motion in court.

Senate Bill 86/Assembly Bill 57 – Requiring a judge's permission to dismiss a case or offer deferred prosecution agreement

Prosecutors would have to seek permission from judges to dismiss certain charges against defendants, even if a prosecutor learns the defendant is innocent of the charge or believes the evidence does not support the charge, under a Republican-backed bill.

The bill would also prohibit prosecutors from offering deferred prosecution agreements to individuals charged or who could possibly be charged with certain crimes.

The Assembly bill won support from two police organizations – the Wisconsin Chiefs of Police Association and the Wisconsin State Lodge Fraternal Order of Police – and an insurance group at a public hearing before the Assembly Judiciary Committee. The ACLU of Wisconsin registered in opposition.

"We support this bill because of the revolving door that Milwaukee has become for criminals, and this has had a detrimental impact not only for Milwaukee but the communities that surround Milwaukee," Milwaukee Police Association Vice President Alexander Ayala told the committee. "Time after time we see someone arrested for a crime or several crimes only to later discover that some if not most charges were dismissed or amended to a lower crimes (sic) by a district attorney."

"Now we understand that the workload for a DA is only growing, especially for Milwaukee county DA's, due to their staffing shortages and now it becomes the perfect storm of catch and dismiss," Ayala said. "We believe that the list of crimes set forth here are some of the crimes that have a high impact on quality-of-life issues and they (sic) should be an approval process in place if DA's are going to dismiss or amend charges."

The bill would require a prosecutor to seek a judge's OK to dismiss or amend a charge if the existing charge is:

• a crime of domestic abuse or a violation of a domestic violence temporary restraining order or injunction;
• theft of an automobile;
• a crime of abuse of an individual at risk or a violation of an individual-at-risk TRO or injunction;
• first-degree, second-degree, or third-degree sexual assault;
• a crime against a child;
• 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
• reckless driving that results in great bodily harm.

A judge could approve the dismissal or amendment of such a charge only upon finding it 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.

The bill does not indicate where innocence would fit within those two categories.

Courts would be required to submit annual reports to the legislature detailing every dismissal or amended charge allowed.

The bill also would prohibit prosecutors from offering deferred prosecution agreements to anyone charged with those same crimes or who could be charged with those crimes.

"Each time deferred prosecution allows a dangerous person back into our communities it puts our communities and our officers at risk," said Howard Handler, senior director for strategy, policy and government affairs for the National Insurance Crime Bureau, an industry group. "Too often we have seen deferred prosecution agreements that result in serious injury or death. This bill creates accountability in our judicial system by prohibiting deferred prosecution for serious crimes."

Senate Bill 87/Assembly Bill 87 – Restitution for OWI deaths

A judge could order a drunk driver who kills the parent of minor children to pay the costs of caring for the children until they are 18, under this bill. 

"When setting restitution payed to a parent or guardian of a victim's child, the court may also consider the financial needs and resources of the child and the surviving parent or guardian, the standard of living that the child is accustomed to, the child's emotional needs and physical and legal custody arrangements, and the reasonable work-related child care expenses of the surviving parent or guardian," the Legislative Reference Bureau said in a summary of the bill.

​Any restitution award granted under the bill would offset a subsequent award in a civil suit, according to the bill.

Senate Bill 96/Assembly Bill 70 – Encouraging riots

It would be illegal to urge, promote, organize, encourage, or instigate a riot, under the bill. The "riot" could involve as few as three people and no damage to property or harm to any individual is required. "Riot" is defined as "a public disturbance that involves an act of violence...that constitutes a clear and present danger of property damage or personal injury or a threat of an act of violence, as part of an assembly of at least three persons having the ability of immediate execution of the threat, if the threatened action constitutes a clear and present danger of property damage or personal injury." 

Violations would be punishable by up to 3½ years in prison and a $10,000 fine. Committing an act of violence during a riot would be punishable by up to six years in prison and a $10,000 fine.

The ACLU of Wisconsin and Wisconsin Conservation Voters registered against the proposal. The Wisconsin Chiefs of Police Association registered in favor.

"This bill should hold accountable those who want to make a peaceful protest a violent one. Acts of violence while in a protest can incite a riot and those people need to be charged," the Milwaukee Police Association's Ayala said in testimony before the Judiciary Committee. "Riots destroy neighborhoods, hurt innocent people, business and first responders that are trying to do their jobs.

"I have now been involved in two separate incidents of protest that turned into riots," he said. "One in 2016 when a gas station was burned down in District 7 along with other business and squad cars. My second one in 2020 when as a detective and (sic) had to put on my riot gear and stand in line to protect our Police Administration Building located downtown. That day the group of several hundred people remained peaceful, but you could feel the tension in the air and at any moment the protest could turn into a riot."

By Gretchen Schuldt

The Republican-led Legislature is full-speed ahead on bills to crack down on reckless driving by subjecting some offenders to immediate impoundment of their cars and substantially increasing the forfeitures imposed on reckless-driving offenses.

The Assembly Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee is holding a hearing on the bills on Tuesday in Madison.

Here is a rundown of some of the latest justice-related bills introduced.

​Senate Bill 75/Assembly Bill 54 – Implementing cash bail changes yet to be adopted

Voters will decide in April whether people accused of certain crimes may be held in jail without bail prior to a determination of whether they are guilty of any crime at all, but that is not stopping Republican legislators from taking their first swing at deciding what kind of criminal charges would qualify a person for higher bail or no bail at all.

Currently, cash bail is meant to ensure that a person appears in court, protect members of the community from serious bodily harm, or prevent the intimidation of witnesses. 

The constitutional amendment would allow judges to consider more factors when ordering and setting bail, including whether the person is accused of a "violent crime," however the legislature defines that, and the need to protect community members from "serious harm" (not just serious bodily harm), and however the legislature defines that. 

Under the bill, "serious harm" would include property damage or economic loss of over $2,500, according to the Legislative Reference Bureau. It also would include any personal physical pain or injury, any illness, any impairment of physical condition, or death. It would include mental anguish or emotional harm related to the injury, illness, or death.

Currently, theft of less than $2,500 is a misdemeanor, but a separate bill would make theft of more than $1,000 a felony. That bill also is set for the public hearing on Tuesday.

The bill defines "violent crime" to include offenses including homicide, aggravated and special circumstances battery, mayhem, sexual assault, false imprisonment, human trafficking, hostage-taking, kidnapping, stalking, disarming a police officer, arson, felony burglary, and carjacking, according to the LRB. It also would include crimes where a domestic abuse or dangerous weapon penalty enhancer could be applied; the violation of a domestic abuse, child abuse, or harassment injunction; or the solicitation, conspiracy, or attempt to commit a Class A felony, the state's most serious felony classification.

While the bill would prohibit "excessive" bail, that is undefined.

Senate Bill 76/Assembly Bill 52 – Calling out carjacking

The maximum penalty for carjacking would be increased by 20 years in prison, under this bill. Taking a vehicle without the owner's consent, with a weapon and use or threat of force, is now punishable by up to 40 years in prison and a $100,000 fine. This bill creates a separate offense of carjacking and increases the maximum penalty to up to 60 years in prison.

Senate Bill 90/Assembly Bill 55 – Increasing reckless-driving forfeitures

This bill would increase the forfeiture for first-offense reckless driving from the current range of $25 to $200 to $50 to $400.

The penalty for the second or subsequent offense would jump from the current fine of $40 to $500 to a fine of $100 to $1,000 if the second or subsequent offense is committed within four years. Currently, the increased fine applies only to offenses that occur within one year of the first offense. The additional potential penalty of a year in jail remains unchanged.

The $435 driver improvement surcharge and the $50 safe ride surcharge also would be imposed on people convicted of reckless driving.

Other changes to fines and forfeitures proposed in the bill are shown in the chart below.​

Senate Bill 92/Assembly Bill 56 – Impounding some vehicles used in reckless-driving offenses

This bill would allow communities to adopt ordinances allowing police to immediately impound a vehicle used in a reckless driving offense if the driver owns the vehicle and has not fully paid an earlier forfeiture for a reckless driving conviction. 

The Legislature is back in session. We’re flagging and summarizing the latest justice-related proposals. If something here catches your eye, links will take you to the full bills. A table showing the bills' sponsors is at the bottom of this post.

Senate Joint Resolution 10 — Measuring public opinion on restoring abortion access

Democratic legislators are trying again to get abortion on the ballot.

The question on the 2024 spring ballot would simply ask, “Shall Wisconsin's 1849 abortion law be repealed and the constitutional right guaranteed under Roe v. Wade be restored?"

The 1849 law prohibits abortion unless it is necessary to save the life of the mother.

A similar ballot question failed last month on a party-line vote, with Republicans opposed.

                                                                                        ***

Senate Bill 11 — Expanding treatment alternatives and diversion programs

Under the bill, grant funding for treatment alternatives and diversion programs could be used to support services that provide treatment, as an alternative to prosecution or incarceration, for any kind of mental illness. Currently, the grants are used to pay for only alcohol or drug treatment services. 

                                                                                        ***

Senate Bill 21 — Increasing allowed personal property for those in custody

People incarcerated by the state would be allowed to keep personal property valued up to $150 and a musical instrument or electronic item worth up to $350, under the bill. Incarcerated individuals now are allowed to possess personal property with a value up to $75, except that a person can possess a musical instrument or electronic item worth up to $350. Medically prescribed items still would be allowed, as is the case now.

                                                                                        ***

Senate Bill 25 — Lowering the dollar threshold for felony theft of property

Under the bill, felony theft charges would apply in cases now charged as misdemeanors. Currently, thefts involving goods valued at less than $2,500 are misdemeanors punishable by up to nine months of incarceration and a $10,000 fine. Under the bill, theft of property worth $1,000 to $5,000 would be a felony punishable by up to three years in prison and a $10,000 fine.

                                                                                       ***

Senate Bill 38 — Reforming expungement law

Supporters of expungement reform are trying again to modify the state’s law governing when a criminal record can be cleared.

The restrictions now are pretty strict. A record can be expunged if the maximum potential prison sentence is six years or less, the crime involved was not a violent felony and was committed by someone 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 on which to base that decision.

Under the new bill, the age restriction would be lifted. Certain restrictions would remain, including those on 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 their sentence.

If the petition is denied, the person can’t 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.

By Gretchen Schuldt

​State Sen. Andre Jacque (R-De Pere) wants to ask voters whether the Department of Corrections should be required to recommend revocation of community supervision for anyone charged with a crime while on probation, parole, or extended supervision.

Jacque and Sen. Stephen Nass (R-Whitewater) also would like to ask voters whether they think school districts should be prohibited from providing curriculum or instruction to students that one race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex or that an individual, because of the individual's race or sex, bears responsibility for acts committed in the past by others of the same race or sex. 

The referendums would be advisory only, meaning they would have no legal impact. Both questions, introduced last week for consideration by the Legislature, if passed would be submitted to voters in an upcoming election. 

There already are two referendum questions on the April 4 ballot. One would amend the state constitution regarding bail if voters approve. The other, advisory only, asks whether able-bodied childless adults should be required to look for jobs in order to receive taxpayer-funded welfare benefits. 

The advisory referendums are widely seen as efforts to draw conservatives to the polls to vote in the hotly contested state Supreme Court race.

Update on 2/1/23: The two referendum questions slated for the April 4 ballot are being challenged as submitted too late under state law.