 The Wisconsin State Capitol. Photograph by Margo Kirchner. By Alexandria Staubach
We continue our summary of justice-related bills and those with significant potential to impact the rights of marginalized populations in Wisconsin. Consistent with part 1 of this post, these are bills passed in the final weeks of the last substantive legislative of this term. Limited legislation will be produced until January 2027. At the end you’ll find bills that have passed in the Assembly and could still be taken up by the Senate when it convenes for a “limited-business” session in March. Six new laws create crimes or increase penalties for criminal conduct despite a failure (thus far) to pass legislation that could help ease the burden on an already stretched criminal justice system, even as Wisconsin creeps closer to record-breaking incarceration and overcrowding in its prisons. As of Feb. 20, the Wisconsin DOC in-custody population was 23,461, while prison population data shows that the system is designed to house 17,822 individuals. Nearly every adult institution continues to operate above capacity. Of specific note, Waupun Correctional Institution, a facility that has been the subject of federal investigation and several indictments over employee conduct and prisoner deaths since June 2023, is operating above capacity. It was previously the only maximum security institution operating below capacity but crossed that threshold in late January 2026, adding 46 new individuals to its population in the last 24 days. The summaries below come directly from descriptions of the bills written by the Legislative Reference Bureaus. Italics are additions by Wisconsin Justice Initiative, except as to SB 431. New crimes and increased penalties AB 677 Creating a crime of grooming a child for sexual activity Under current law, child enticement is a Class D felony. Child enticement is the act of causing or attempting to cause a child to go into any vehicle, building, room, or secluded place for various sexual purposes, including sexual contact or sexual intercourse; prostitution; to expose a person’s genitals, pubic area, or intimate parts to the child or to cause the child to expose his or her genitals, pubic area, or intimate parts; or to record the child engaging in sexually explicit conduct. This bill creates a crime of grooming a child for sexual activity. Under this bill, no person may engage in a course of conduct, pattern of behavior, or series of acts with the intention to condition, seduce, solicit, lure, or entice a child for the purpose of engaging in sexual intercourse or sexual contact or for the purpose of producing, distributing, or possessing depictions of the child engaged in sexually explicit conduct. The bill provides examples of a course of conduct, pattern of behavior, or series of acts that could constitute grooming, including verbal comments, suggestions, or conversations of a sexual nature directed toward a child; inappropriate or sexualized physical contact; written, electronic, or digital communications to seduce, solicit, lure, or entice a child; and isolating a child. A person who is convicted of the crime of grooming a child for sexual activity is guilty of a Class G felony, except that, if the person is in a position of trust or authority over the child, the classification increases to a Class F felony; if the child has a disability known to the person, the classification increases to a Class E felony; and if the violation involves two or more children, the classification increases to a Class D felony. Additionally, the person is subject to consequences for committing a child sex offense such as the requirement to register with the Department of Corrections as a sex offender. The crime does not apply to a person who is 18 or under if it involves a child who is not more than four years younger than the person unless the violation involves force, coercion, or abuse of a position of trust or authority over the child. SB 431 Expansion of permitted discrimination based on arrest record under the Fair Employment Act This bill changes the circumstances under which an employer or licensing agency may consider pending charges against an individual under the fair employment law when making employment or licensing determinations. Under the current fair employment law, it is generally an unlawful act of employment discrimination for an employer or a licensing agency to refuse to hire, employ, admit, or license any individual; to bar or terminate an individual from employment; or to discriminate against any individual in promotion, in compensation, or in terms, conditions, or privileges of employment or labor organization membership because of the individual’s arrest record. “Arrest record” is generally defined as information indicating that an individual has been questioned, apprehended, taken into custody or detention, held for investigation, arrested, charged with, indicted, or tried for any felony, misdemeanor, or other offense. In Oconomowoc Area School District v. Cota, 2025 WI 11, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that the phrase “other offense” encompasses noncriminal offenses and that, therefore, the prohibition against arrest record discrimination extends to pending charges other than criminal charges. However, under certain exceptions to the foregoing prohibition, it is not employment discrimination because of arrest record to refuse to employ or license, or to suspend from employment or licensing, an individual because the individual is subject to a pending charge if the circumstances of the charge substantially relate to the circumstances of the particular job or the licensed activity. The bill eliminates the requirement, in the exceptions to the prohibition on arrest record discrimination, that the pending charge be a criminal charge. SB 610 Increasing the maximum penalty for certain controlled substance offenses if the violation occurs near a homeless shelter Current law prohibits a person from delivering or distributing, or possessing with the intent to deliver or distribute, cocaine, cocaine base, fentanyl, a fentanyl analog, heroin, phencyclidine, lysergic acid diethylamide, psilocin, psilocybin, amphetamine, methamphetamine, methcathinone, or any form of tetrahydrocannabinols. The penalty for violating the prohibition varies by substance and amount, but current law increases the maximum term of imprisonment for violating the prohibition by five years if the violation takes place on or in, or within 1,000 feet of, a park, a jail, a multiunit public housing project, a public swimming pool, a youth or community center, a school or a school bus, or the premises of a treatment facility that provides alcohol and other drug abuse treatment. This bill adds that the maximum term of imprisonment may be increased by five years if the violation takes place on the premises of a homeless shelter or within 1,000 feet of the premises of a homeless shelter. Because this bill creates a new crime or revises a penalty for an existing crime, the Joint Review Committee on Criminal Penalties may be requested to prepare a report. AB 109 Increased penalties for crimes against adults at risk This bill allows a term of imprisonment that is imposed for a criminal conviction to be increased in length if the crime victim was an adult at risk. Under the bill, a maximum term of imprisonment of one year or less may be increased to two years; a maximum term of imprisonment of one to 10 years may be increased by up to four years; and a maximum term of imprisonment of more than 10 years may be increased by up to six years. Under the bill, the term of imprisonment may be lengthened irrespective of whether the defendant knew that the crime victim was an adult at risk. The bill also increases the severity of crimes for sexual assault of an at-risk adult, permits asset seizure and freezing of a defendant charged with financial exploitation of an “elder person,” and matches the set of penalties that apply to physical abuse of an elder person to those for an adult at risk. AB 89 Retail theft aggregation and providing a penalty Under current law, the penalty for the crime of property theft varies by the value of the property taken. The penalty ranges from a Class A misdemeanor if the value of the property is not more than $2,500 to a Class F felony if the value of the property exceeds $100,000. Similarly, the penalty for the crime of retail theft varies by the value of the merchandise or service that is taken. The penalty ranges from a Class A misdemeanor if the value is not more than $500 to a Class G felony if the value exceeds $10,000. 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. SB 533 Intentionally disarming a correctional officer Under current law, a person is guilty of a Class H felony if they intentionally disarm a peace officer by taking from the officer a dangerous weapon or an item such as a tear gas bomb, hand grenade, projectile, shell, or pepper spray. This bill expands the crime so that it applies to intentionally disarming a correctional officer or juvenile correctional officer as well as a peace officer and includes items that the correctional officer requires for their duties, such as keys or radios. Voting and other issues AB 385 Campaign contributions by foreign nationals For campaign finance purposes, this bill prohibits a political committee, conduit, or political party from accepting any contribution made with a credit card via the Internet unless the contributor provides the credit card verification value or code and the billing address associated with the card is located in the United States. However, if the contribution is made by a U.S. citizen living outside of the United States, and the credit card billing address is not a location in the United States, the individual must provide the mailing address of the location in the United States that the individual uses for voter registration purposes. AB 223 Requirements for persons circulating nomination papers Under current law, any person may circulate nomination papers for a candidate if the person is eligible to vote in Wisconsin or is a U.S. citizen aged 18 or older who, if he or she were a Wisconsin resident, would not be disqualified from voting in the state. A person is eligible to vote in Wisconsin if he or she is a U.S. citizen aged 18 or older who has resided in an election district in this state for at least 28 consecutive days. Under this bill, a person must be eligible to vote in Wisconsin in order to circulate nomination papers for a candidate. However, under the bill, nomination papers and petitions for the candidacy of candidates for the offices of president and vice president of the United States may continue to be circulated by any person eligible to vote in Wisconsin or by any U.S. citizen aged 18 or older who, if he or she were a Wisconsin resident, would not be disqualified from voting in the state. Similarly, under current law, any person who is eligible to vote in Wisconsin or who is a U.S. citizen aged 18 or older and who, if he or she were a Wisconsin resident, would not be disqualified from voting in the state may circulate a recall petition. Under the bill, a person must be eligible to vote in Wisconsin in order to circulate a recall petition and have the signatures on the petition be counted toward a recall. SB 652 Eliminating race-based higher education program requirements This bill changes certain race-based programs or requirements in higher education. In general, the bill modifies these programs and requirements so they apply to disadvantaged students rather than minority students. Under the bill, the term “disadvantaged,” with respect to a student, means having experienced any unfavorable economic, familial, geographic, physical, or other personal hardship. The term may be further defined by rule but may not include the consideration of 1) a student’s race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, or religion or 2) a student’s identity as a member of a group without regard to individual qualities. Impacted programs include: Minnority Teacher Loan Program, Minority Undergraduate Grants, Minority Student Enrollment at Medical College of Wisconsin and Marquette University School of Dentistry, Minority and Disadvantaged Student Programs, Lawton Grants, Minority Student and Participation and Retention Plan, Minority Student Participation and Retention Grants, Incentive Grants. Bills passed by the Assembly that the Senate could take up at their limited-business session AB 514 Criminal justice system expansion Under current law, Kenosha County has eight circuit court branches, Brown County has eight circuit court branches, and Menominee and Shawano Counties have two circuit court branches. This bill adds four circuit court branches: one in Brown County beginning August 1, 2027, one in Menominee and Shawano Counties beginning August 1, 2027, one in Brown County beginning August 1, 2028, and one in Kenosha County beginning August 1, 2028. This bill provides position authority for many court and criminal justice system employees in the 2027-29 biennium…. The bill requires the director of state courts, the district attorneys, and the public defender board to include a request for funding for the positions authorized under this bill in their 2027-29 biennial budget requests. This bill also requires the director of state courts, the public defender board, and the district attorneys to submit to the legislature by December 31, 2032 a report that analyzes the workload and assesses the personnel needs for their operations. You can read more about this bill here. AB 640 Supreme Court of Wisconsin maximum age Article VII, section 24 (2), of the Wisconsin Constitution authorizes the legislature to set an age, of not less than 70 years, beyond which a supreme court justice or judge of any court of record may not serve, unless the person is appointed on a temporary basis as a reserve judge. Under this bill, no person may be elected or appointed, other than as a temporary reserve judge, to serve as a supreme court justice or judge of a court of record if the date of election or appointment occurs on or after the date the person attains the age of 75 years. AB 856 Modifications to OWI provisions based on Supreme Court of Wisconsin rulings This bill modifies numerous provisions relating to operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated (OWI) to reflect holdings of the supreme courts of the United States and Wisconsin. Under current law, no person may operate a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant, with a detectable amount of a restricted controlled substance in their blood, or with a prohibited alcohol concentration. Under current law, any person who operates a motor vehicle on public highways in this state is deemed to have given consent to one or more tests of their breath, blood, or urine, for the purpose of determining the presence or quantity in their blood or breath, of alcohol, controlled substances, controlled substance analogs, or other drugs (commonly known as “implied consent”). Under current law, if a person is involved in a motor vehicle accident that causes substantial bodily harm, great bodily harm, or death and a law enforcement officer detects the presence of alcohol, controlled substances, controlled substance analogs, or other drugs, the person may be requested to provide one or more samples of their blood, breath, or urine for testing. If the person refuses, their operating privilege must be revoked. In State v. Blackman, 2017 WI 77, 377 Wis. 2d 339, 898 N.W.2d 774, the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that probable cause of an OWI violation is a prerequisite to revocation of an operating license for a refusal. The bill modifies provisions consistent with this holding. Under current law, a person who would be requested to provide samples for testing but who is unconscious or otherwise not capable of withdrawing consent is presumed not to have withdrawn consent and one or more samples may be collected (commonly known as the “incapacitated driver provision”). In State v. Prado, 2021 WI 64, 397 Wis. 2d 719, 960 N.W.2d 869, the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that the incapacitated driver provision is unconstitutional. The bill repeals provisions consistent with this holding. Under current law, there are separate but analogous implied consent and incapacitated driver provisions applicable to all-terrain vehicles (ATVs), utility terrain vehicles (UTVs), boats, and snowmobiles. Pursuant to Prado, these provisions are repealed. In addition, if a person refuses to submit to a test of their breath, blood, or urine related to their operation of an ATV, UTV, boat, or snowmobile, they are subject to a criminal penalty. In Birchfield v. North Dakota, 579 U.S. 438, 136 S. Ct. 2160, the U.S. Supreme Court held that it is unconstitutional to criminalize a refusal to submit to a blood test incident to arrest for an OWI violation. The bill modifies relevant provisions to reflect this holding. The bill also modifies the text of the “informing the accused” form, which a law enforcement officer must read to a person from whom a test sample is requested, in part to reflect changes made by the bill. Bills that have likely failed SB 147 Interpreter action by telephonic or live audio visual means 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. SB 194 Attorney fees and costs when an authority voluntarily or unilaterally 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.
0 Comments
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.  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. By Margo Kirchner
Gov. Tony Evers just vetoed a bill that would have required the Department of Corrections to recommend revocation if a person on extended supervision, parole, or probation is charged with a new crime. In his veto message, Evers wrote that he objected "to the unfunded mandate that such revocation would impose on the Department of Corrections, which would move Wisconsin in the wrong direction on criminal justice reform without improving public safety. This bill is estimated to have a fiscal impact of more than $330 million in just the first two years and hundreds of millions of dollars in unknown, ongoing costs to state taxpayers in the years to follow. This significant price tag does not include construction costs to build additional state correctional facilities, which would likely be needed, or take into account the fiscal impact on local governments. This fiscal impact is particularly untenable on the heels of the legislature significantly underfunding existing operations at the Department of Corrections in the most recent state budget." Evers wrote that "Wisconsin should be investing in data-driven, evidence-based programming that addresses barriers to reentry, enhances educational and vocational opportunities for individuals who will be released after completing their sentence, and provides treatment for mental health and substance use issues, which will help to reduce recidivism and save taxpayer money while improving public safety." Wisconsin Justice Initiative and Wisconsin Justice Initiative Action wrote to Evers on Wednesday, urging him to veto the bill, AB 85. Currently, the DOC has discretion to pursue revocation when a person on release is charged with a new crime. Revocations are then decided by administrative law judges, rather than sentencing judges. AB 85 would have taken away the DOC’s discretion and required that the department recommend revocation, even though new charges are based only on probable cause and could later be dropped or defeated at trial. The Assembly passed AB 85 in March along party lines with the exception of cross-over votes by one representative from each side. The Senate passed the bill in June along party lines. The bill was sent to Evers yesterday. As of today, Wisconsin holds 23,346 people in prison. The most recent available number of people on probation or parole, from May 31, is 63,420. Estimates indicated that if the bill became law, more than 4,600 additional people would end up in Wisconsin prisons each year, with a price tag of $250 million annually once the additional population was in place. In written testimony in the Legislature, even the Badger State Sheriffs’ Association and Wisconsin Sheriffs and Deputy Sheriffs Association questioned the bill, expressing concern about its cost and impact on jails and prisons. WJI and WJI Action's letter to the governor said that “the bill turns the long-standing American concept of ‘innocent until proven guilty’ on its head. The bill would require that a person on supervision is presumed guilty of a violation of the terms of release merely upon accusations of other, as yet unproved, conduct, which are made on only probable cause.” Further, WJI and WJI Action wrote, “individuals on supervision or parole already face overwhelming odds against making it to the finish line. . . . People on release face a long list of behavior controlled by the DOC, and for more than a decade, the Department of Corrections has failed to develop rules and guidance implementing 2013 Wisconsin Act 196 to provide those on release with guidance.” As WJI reported recently, Act 196 calls for DOC to develop a list of sanctions that may be imposed for the most common violations, offering “clear and immediate consequences for violations.” The law also mandates that any rule developed by DOC take into account the impact of revocation on an offender’s employment and family. WJI and WJI Action pointed out that Wisconsin’s prisons are already at capacity and that this bill sends that number higher, at great fiscal and societal cost. The organizations also questioned the removal of discretion from the DOC. Minister Roy Rogers, executive director of The Onesimus Group Milwaukee and a WJI board member with personal experience in the justice system, had this to say about the bill: "Assembly Bill 85—though cloaked in the language of accountability—is, in truth, a reactionary measure. It weakens due process, disrespects the discretion of our criminal justice professionals, and burdens our communities with costly, ineffective incarceration." "Out of the 6,280 individuals charged with new crimes while under supervision in 2019, we must ask: how many of those charges ended in actual convictions? According to the Department of Corrections and the Badger Institute, more than half did not. Yet this bill would treat every charge as though it were already a conviction—punishing men and women based solely on an accusation." "That’s not justice," he told WJI. "That’s preemptive punishment—a direct threat to the constitutional principle of 'innocent until proven guilty.' . . . Charges can stem from false accusations, mistaken identity, or insufficient evidence. And in historically over-policed, marginalized communities, we know all too well that it doesn't take much to find yourself charged." Rogers, too, noted that the bill stripped discretion from DOC agents and administrative law judges, who "weigh the severity of the violation, the individual's risk level, and history. That’s what smart justice looks like. AB 85 would remove all that wisdom and replace it with a blunt, one-size-fits-all mandate—rooted in fear, not facts." "Public safety is essential," Rogers told WJI. "But AB 85 did not offer real safety—it offered mass disruption under the guise of accountability. We cannot incarcerate our way into healthy neighborhoods. We need wiser strategies that reduce harm, restore people, and invest in transformation."
By Alexandria Staubach
The Wisconsin Legislature last week moved forward on increasingly punitive measures that increase the likelihood of incarceration, ignoring community calls for systems and programs that decrease recidivism and address root causes of crime. Senate Bill 93/Assembly Bill 85 predominated at the Senate Committee on Judiciary and Public Safety’s 4½-hour public hearing on April 1. The committee has not yet voted on the bill. If it passes out of committee, it would then go to the full Senate, possibly in the next floor session period, which runs April 15-25. The bill has already passed in the Assembly If enacted, the bill would require the Wisconsin Department of Corrections to recommend revocation of probation or parole when an individual is charged with (not convicted of) a new crime. Law enforcement groups unanimously supported the bill at the hearing, while groups with ties to reentry services and justice reform unanimously opposed it. Committee member Sen. Dora Drake (D-Milwaukee) expressed concern over the potential costs of the legislation after one of the bill’s lead sponsors, Rep. Brent Jacobson (R-Mosinee), highlighted a fiscal planning estimate by the Wisconsin Department of Administration that as many as 47% of individuals currently on supervision could be subject to revocation if the law is enacted. The fiscal estimate anticipates that the legislation could eventually increase the prison population by 4,600 people, requiring $245.7 million in additional spending by the DOC. “It's an admission in itself that we have an issue,” said Jacobson. He said that while “impossible” to quantify, recidivism also has comparable community costs. While the DOC did not provide oral testimony at the hearing, it opposes the legislation, which it views as removing its discretion. Cost wasn’t the only hot topic. Deep frustration with repeat offenders squared off with the real-life ramifications for everyone on supervision. “It takes an act of Congress to get somebody revoked in our state,” said Dodge County Sheriff Dale Schmidt. He has heard from those on supervision that “probation and parole is a joke because I can do whatever I want on it,” he said. On the opposing side, Marianne Olson, operations director of Ex-incarcerated Persons Organizing, said, “I live in a world where not everyone gets along, and even being in the wrong place at the wrong time can lead to charges.” Olson is currently serving more than 20 years of supervision after being sentences for nonviolent offenses. She said that “revocation should never be based on mere allegations,” and that studies show “supportive interventions, not harsh penalties, promote lasting public safety.” When a person is revoked from community supervision, they serve the remainder of their sentence incarcerated – even if probation was ordered in the first instance. Speakers also shared concerns about revoking individuals without due process. Hearings on revocations are presided over by an administrative law judge, and due process protections are relaxed. “There is a concern for me” said Drake. “If someone is innocent until proven guilty, they should be treated as such.” “Senate Bill 93 does not just abandon the values of rehabilitation and reintegration,” but “it erodes due process,” said Sean Wilson, senior director of organizing and partnerships at Dream.org. “We cannot continue to double down on harmful polies that have pushed our correction system to a breaking point,” said Amanda Merkwae, ACLU of Wisconsin’s advocacy director. She shared statistics indicating that Wisconsin exceeds the national average regarding incarceration rates and revocations are a driving force behind that incarceration. Merkwae said revocations for rule violations and new charges “accounted for 60% of the total 8,155 new prison admissions in 2024” and that the overwhelming majority of cases recommended for revocation hearings result in incarceration. Shannon Ross, whose recent work includes helping usher in a bill creating what he calls a “one stop for reentry services,” shared his personal anxiety on supervision. Ross, successful founder of the reentry focused nonprofit The Community, which employs seven people, said he has 11½ years of supervision left on his own sentence. “At any given moment an allegation can send me back to prison,” and “it doesn’t matter the things I’ve done.” “People who have been out for so long in Wisconsin, the way we’ve structured our system, don’t have the same ability to stay in society and avoid going back in,” Ross said. “This is like writing business law without talking to business owners,” said Ross. His testimony was followed by others with real-life supervision stories.  By Alexandria Staubach
Separation of powers issues continue to loom large in District 2 of the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, where two judges claim that no branch of government has “unfettered authority to act as it or they please” but then affirm the Legislature’s wresting of power from the executive branch. On Dec. 19, Judges Maria S. Lazar and Shelly A. Grogan sided with the Legislature in ruling that all money collected by the Wisconsin Department of Justice shall be deposited into the state’s general fund for disbursement by the Legislature at its discretion. Judge Lisa S. Neubauer dissented. Previously, the DOJ held discretion over settlement funds for cases it prosecuted and was, in effect, permitted to retain some money it generated from the settlement of civil litigation. However, according to Lazar's majority opinion, “both the legislative and statutory history confirm that the legislature enacted the new statute to alter the prior practices of the attorney general and to expressly bolster its monetary control over state funds.” The same split panel recently upheld a law permitting the Legislature’s involvement in DOJ settlements. Both cases stemmed from interpretation and application of legislation hastily passed in a lame-duck session in late 2018 as Gov. Scott Walker left office, designed to give the Legislature more power before Gov. Tony Evers took over. Neubauer wrote in dissent that the majority failed to adhere to still valid Wisconsin law providing a carve-out for the DOJ to retain control over some funds it collects, such as attorneys’ fees and funds for investigation. Neubauer wrote that the statute at issue in the appeal provides that “funds will be credited to the general purpose revenues unless another law provides a different crediting direction,” and that subsections of another statute “provide such direction.” “To the extent this result is the product of imprecise word choice or other inadvertence on the legislature’s part, it is not our function to correct such an oversight,” wrote Neubauer. To arrive at its interpretation of the law, the majority “work(ed) backwards from a predetermined conclusion” and acted “antithetical to our statutory interpretation methodology,” said Neubauer.  By Alexandria Staubach Milwaukee County’s 2025 budget shows how recent state legislation helped improve revenue, but analysis shows that spending is increasing even more. Last week, Milwaukee County unanimously adopted its 2025 budget. With reserves shored up by new taxes, the budget seems positive. Recent state legislation known as Act 12 permitted the county to raise Milwaukee County’s sales tax from 0.5% to 0.9% in 2024. However, the Wisconsin Policy Forum’s annual review warns that “the fiscal stability produced by Act 12 is likely to be short lived.” Budget gains anticipated from the tax for 2024 fell short of projections and are quickly gobbled up by required spending on law enforcement. In the 2025 budget, $161.1 million will be spent on public safety alone. According to the Forum’s review, year-over-year increases in costs demonstrate “if these trends continue—that public safety expenditure pressures will consume much of the annual revenue growth promised by Act 12, or all of it in years like 2025 when sales tax growth is modest.” The Forum warns that “unless new strategies are developed to control annual cost increases in the public safety function, the future impact of Act 12 in helping resolve the county’s structural deficit may be eclipsed.” Among the biggest beneficiaries of 2025’s budget is the Milwaukee County Sheriff’s Office, which according to the Forum’s review will receive “the largest percentage increase of any functional area in the budget besides non-departmental expenses.” A new $5 million have been allocated to the sheriff’s department, bringing its 2025 budget to $64.7 million. According to the Forum, that’s a 42.2% increase over 2021. The sheriff’s office funding will cover nine new bailiff positions plus $800,000 for salary and benefit increases under a new labor agreement with the Milwaukee Deputy Sheriffs' Association. Another $2.1 million are allocated for overtime expenses, as the department continues to struggle with staffing shortages. The Community Reintegration Center will see a boost to its budget, from $60.2 million in 2024 to $65.5 million in 2025. Here, too, $1 million has been allocated for overtime, as the center also struggles with staffing shortages, which reached 36% in 2022. $4.1 million is attributed to rising healthcare and food-service contract costs. The budget adds $2.7 million to the court system, some of which will fund eight new full-time positions in children’s court. A separate $1.7 million is allocated to pay attorneys taking cases that would otherwise be eligible for service from the State Public Defender’s Office, but for which that office has a conflict. Operating costs and costs allocated to acquiring or maintaining land, buildings, and equipment also foreshadow significant expenses moving forward. According to the review, the 2024 budget allocated $9.4 million dollars to start a much-needed project to replace the county’s decaying Safety Building. The 2025 budget includes another $6 million directed at planning and design of the new courthouse building, plus an authorization to transfer an additional $5 million if necessary. Another $23.7 million is anticipated for the same project in 2026, all before a shovel hits the ground. “Future short comings will be exacerbated by much needed but unprecedented spending to build a new criminal courthouse” in the coming years, the Forum review said.
By Margo Kirchner
We continue our summary of justice-related laws passed this last legislative session, many of which created new crimes and increases criminal penalties rather than easing the number of incarcerated individuals and the harsh aspects of Wisconsin's criminal justice system. Part 1 is available here. Except for interim committee work, the Legislature has adjourned until after the November 2024 elections. Here’s more of what was signed into law. Senate Bill 314, now 2023 Wisconsin Act 224 Current law criminalizes possession of child pornography involving a real child engaged in actual or simulated sexually explicit conduct. This law adds a new felony crime for receiving, distributing, producing, possessing or accessing an obscene photograph, film, or digital or computer-generated image that appears to depict a child engaged in sexually explicit conduct even though no actual child is in the image. Senate Bill 321, now 2023 Wisconsin Act 225 The Legislature created a new crime for illegal possession of a “child sex doll,” with various levels of felony punishment based on number of dolls, repeat offenses, and past convictions for other crimes against children. A child sex doll is defined as an anatomically correct doll, mannequin, or robot with features resembling a minor child, intended for use in sex acts or to manipulate or instruct children to participate in sex acts. Manufacture, sale, transferring, advertising, and providing premises for child sex doll use are also prohibited. Senate Bill 514, now 2023 Wisconsin Act 226 This law increases the felony level penalties for fleeing an officer. It provides for mandatory minimum incarceration periods of 18 months if the violation results in great bodily harm and 30 months if the violation results in death. Senate Bill 169, now 2023 Wisconsin Act 228 This law requires the Department of Workforce Development to establish a toll-free telephone hotline and website with information to help employers interested in hiring individuals with a conviction record. The hotline staff are to provide information on available incentives and programs under state and federal law for employing individuals who have criminal conviction records. Senate Bill 722, now 2023 Wisconsin Act 229 This law requires that Department of Corrections’ training programs for correctional officers include identifying symptoms of active psychosis and reporting such symptoms to the correctional institution’s superintendent and appropriate medical personnel. In addition, the new law expands who may authorize a voluntary transfer of an incarcerated person from jail or prison to a mental health treatment facility. Previously only a physician or psychologist could do so; now a registered nurse, licensed practical nurse, or physician assistant can as well. The law requires that DOC authorize an emergency transfer to a mental health treatment facility or the Wisconsin Resource Center if there is reason to believe a person in DOC care is in active psychosis and a danger to self or others. Assembly Bill 237, now 2023 Wisconsin Act 230 Act 230 changes procedures regarding parole and extended supervision hearings and release. The law increases the notice period for victims from seven to 30 days before the parole or other release hearing, provides that a victim has the right to make an oral or written statement and present visual aids at any hearing, and requires the person being considered for parole or extended supervision release to submit to a psychological evaluation beforehand. The law also allows a police chief or sheriff where the person plans to reside upon release to share information regarding the released individual with the public, if the law enforcement officer thinks it necessary. Assembly Bill 556, now 2023 Wisconsin Act 231 Courts must expedite proceedings in criminal and juvenile matters involving a victim or witness who is an elder, meaning age 60 or older. On any motion for continuance, the court must consider any adverse impact on the well-being of an elder victim or witness. The court must also preserve testimony in criminal matters involving a victim or witness who is an elder if the prosecutor so requests. Upon the prosecutor’s motion, the court must hold a hearing within 60 days to record the elder person's testimony, with the defendant present and able to cross-examine the witness. The recorded testimony will be admissible in evidence in any later court proceedings in the case. Senate Bill 172, now 2023 Wisconsin Act 233 This law requires the DOC to contract with at least one nonprofit organization, for-profit entity, or public agency to establish a community reentry center to assist those released from incarceration with health, identification, financial, housing, employment, education, and supervision services. The DOC must prioritize contracts in counties with the highest numbers of individuals being released from incarceration. DOC staff must be present at the centers to provide case management services. Assembly Bill 965, now 2023 Wisconsin Act 234 As reported previously by WJI, this law creates a new misdemeanor crime for picketing or demonstrating at a judge’s residence with the intent to impede the administration of justice or influence the judge in the discharge of judicial duties. Assembly Bill 966, now 2023 Wisconsin Act 235 As reported previously by WJI, this law enhances privacy protections for judges. The law includes creation of a new felony for publicly posting on the internet personal information of a judicial officer or their immediate family if the intent of the posting is to create or increase a threat to the health and safety of the judicial officer or their family and bodily injury or death of the judicial officer or family member is a natural and probable consequence of the posting. Senate Bill 874, now 2023 Wisconsin Act 254 Certain sex offender registry lifetime tracking requirements and notifications are required for someone released after having been convicted :on two or more separate occasions." This law defines how prior offenses are counted for that purpose. The new law is retroactive, and the DOC must notify persons who were not subject to the lifetime tracking requirement before the bill took effect but now are. If a person fails to register as a sex offender or submit to lifetime tracking within 30 days of notice, the violation is a new felony. By Gretchen Schuldt
Little progress was made this last legislative session to ease the state’s tough criminal justice laws, while Gov. Tony Evers — who took office talking about reducing the prison population — signed several bills creating new crimes and harsher penalties. An oft-introduced bill that would have eased expungement rules and another bill that would have provided juveniles sentenced to life in prison with a chance at reduced sentences failed to get to the governor’s desk. The Legislature has no more floor periods scheduled until the next legislative session begins in January 2025. Here’s a look at what was signed into law. Senate Bill 292, now 2023 Wisconsin Act 1 The law lets municipalities adopt ordinances allowing law enforcement officers to grab up and impound a vehicle if all of the following conditions are met:
The ordinance can call for the vehicle to remain impounded until its owner pays off the earlier forfeiture and for the costs of impoundment, including “towing or other transportation costs and storage costs.” If the owner does not claim the vehicle for 90 days after the disposition of the ticket, the municipality can treat the vehicle as abandoned. Senate Bill 75, now 2023 Wisconsin Act 3 This law was enacted to implement two changes to the state constitution approved by voters in April 2023. Before the amendments, the constitution limited monetary bail to the amount needed to assure a defendant’s appearance in court or to protect members of the public from serious bodily harm. Voters approved changing the constitution’s wording from “serious bodily harm” to “serious harm” as defined by the Legislature defined it in law. The Legislature in this new law adopted a broad definition of “serious harm” after the amendments were adopted. "Serious harm" now includes damage to property over $2,500; economic loss of $2,500; or physical pain, injury, illness, any impairment of physical condition, or death, plus any related mental anguish or emotional harm. Voters also approved allowing a court to impose cash bail for those accused of a "violent crime" as defined by the Legislature, “based on the totality of the circumstances, taking into account whether the accused has a previous conviction for a violent crime as defined by the legislature by law, the probability that the accused will fail to appear in court, the need to protect members of the community from serious harm as defined by the legislature by law, the need to prevent the intimidation of witnesses, and the potential affirmative defenses of the accused.” The new law defines "violent crime" with a long list of crimes and conforms statutory law to the constitutional change. Assembly Bill 55, now 2023 Wisconsin Act 9 Prior to the new law, penalties for reckless driving ranged from a $25 forfeiture to a maximum penalty of 3½ years in prison and a $10,000 fine. The new law stiffens the penalties and adds surcharges. The penalty changes include:
People found guilty of reckless driving also will be assessed a $435 driver improvement surcharge and a $50 safe driver surcharge. Senate Bill 76, now 2023 Wisconsin Act 10 This law increases the penalty for carjacking while possessing a dangerous weapon, by use of force, or by the threat of the weapon. The maximum penalty jumps from 40 years in prison and a $100,000 fine to 60 years in prison. Senate Bill 101, now 2023 Wisconsin Act 29 The penalty for causing the death of another by the unlawful distribution of a Schedule I or II drug or their analogs, ketamine, or flunitrazepam (“roofies”), or by illegally administering or helping to administer those drugs increases from 40 years in prison and a $100,000 fine to 60 years in prison. Assembly Bill 47, now 2023 Wisconsin Act 31 Parole Commission transparency is increased under this bill. It requires the Department of Corrections to post, on the Parole Commission website, the individuals “granted parole, denied parole, and returned to prison following the revocation of parole.” DOC must post monthly and annual aggregate numbers showing:
The law mandates the agency post any guidance documents the Parole Commission uses in making parole decisions. The law allows family members of victims, who were under 18 years old at the time of the crime but who are now adults, to request notification of when the offender is requesting parole or is released on parole or supervision. The measure also increases, from three weeks to 90 days before a parole hearing, the deadline for notifying certain people that an incarcerated person has applied for parole. Assembly Bill 166, now 2023 Wisconsin Act 61 There are new actions that constitute “sexual contact” in determining crimes against children and sexual assault. Those actions include “touching by the complainant of the ejaculate, urine, or feces of any person upon the intentional instructions of the defendant, upon the use or threat of force or violence by the defendant, or upon an intentional act of the defendant.” Senate Bill 485, now 2023 Wisconsin Act 133 The definition of financial institution robbery is expanded under this law to include robbery accomplished “by creating circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to believe use of force was imminent.” The definition previously was limited to robbery “by use of force or threat to use imminent force” to take property owned or in the custody or control of a financial institution. Senate Bill 313, now 2023 Wisconsin Act 154 The penalty for failing to stop for a school bus when it is stopped and flashing red warning lights is increased under this law. The forfeiture rises from a $30 to $300 range, to $1,000. The Wisconsin Department of Transportation also must assess demerit points for any infraction. Senate Bill 460, now 2023 Wisconsin Act 159 This law adds railroad construction and maintenance areas to other areas (such as highway construction areas) where workers are at risk from traffic. The law doubles fines for certain traffic violations committed where workers are present in a railroad construction or maintenance area. Senate Bill 333, now 2023 Wisconsin Act 200 A new crime, sexual misconduct against a pupil, is created under this law. The new law prohibits certain conduct by a school employee or volunteer, including verbal conduct of a sexual nature, meaning “communications made intentionally for the purpose of sexually degrading or sexually humiliating the pupil or the actor, or sexually arousing or sexually gratifying the pupil or the actor,” according to a Legislative Council amendment memo. It also prohibits physical contact of a sexual nature. The Department of Public Instruction must revoke the licenses of those convicted of sexual misconduct. Assembly Bill 437, now 2023 Wisconsin Act 212 This law increases, from $1,000 to $5,000, the forfeiture for a fraud-involved violation of an insurance statute or rule. Senate Bill 875, now 2023 Wisconsin Act 217 Testing materials involved in detecting the drug xylazine or a xylazine analog are exempt from the definition of illegal “drug paraphernalia,” under this law. The law also provides civil and criminal immunity to anyone who distributes such testing material if a person dies or is injured as a result of the material’s administration. The person administering the testing material also is provided immunity, “except for civil liability for negligence in the performance of the act.” More to come in part 2. By Gretchen Schuldt Gov. Tony Evers on Wednesday signed a bill allowing Wisconsin judges to take court action against people or businesses that post on the internet publicly available judicial officers’ personal information without the judges’ consent. Even their marital statuses could be off limits. Generally, under the First Amendment, governments cannot tell people what information they can or cannot post or share. But this law gives individual judges the private right of action to have the information removed from the Internet. Judges from around the state supported the bill in public testimony, as they did the other two bills in the three-bill package. State Supreme Court Chief Justice Annette Ziegler said the law was patterned after similar protections for federal judges and judges in other states. The governor signed all three bills in the package, including a constitutionally questionable bill, Assembly Bill 965 (now Act 234), that prohibits even peaceful demonstrations near a judge’s residence if the demonstrators are trying to disrupt the courts or influence the judge. The measure would criminalize violations, with a maximum punishment of up to $10,000 and nine months behind bars. WJI covered that bill here. The third approved bill, Assembly Bill 967 (now Act 236), exempts judicial security forms from public records disclosures. The forms are used to create security plans for judges. The internet prohibition, Assembly Bill 966 (now Act 235), requires “all persons, businesses, and associations” to “refrain from publicly posting or displaying on the Internet publicly available content that includes the personal information of the judicial officer or the judicial officer's immediate family,” according to the Legislative Reference Bureau summary of the measure. The law singles out data brokers as being included in the prohibitions. Individual judges would have to request nondisclosure, and that request would be good for 10 years. The law allows those judges to request the personal information be removed from the internet and gives the posting party 10 days to comply. Judges could seek an injunction or declaratory relief from a fellow judge if violations occur. If the filing judge wins the case, the posting person or entity “responsible for the violation shall be required to pay the judicial officer's costs and reasonable attorney fees,” the law says. Prevailing respondents in those cases would not be guaranteed the same financial compensation. The posting party would be required to “ensure that the judicial officer's personal information is not made available on any website or subsidiary website controlled by that person, business, or association; and identify any other instances of the identified information that should also be removed,” the law says. The law prohibits the sharing of information "through any medium" after a judge requests nondisclosure unless the information is voluntarily posted by the judge or immediate family member or if the judge requests the information be shared. “Publicly available content” is defined in the law as any document or record “that provides information or that serves as a document or record maintained, controlled, or in the possession of a government agency that may be obtained by any person or entity, from the Internet, from the government agency upon request either free of charge or for a fee, or in response to a public records request.” An exception would be made for information voluntarily posted on the internet by judges themselves, information the judges consent to have released, or information received legally from a federal or state government source. Immediate family members could release personal information about themselves. The government may step in under some circumstances. The legislation makes it a felony to post information if it is done to create or increase a threat to the health and safety of the judge or immediate family or if injury or death "is a natural and probably consequence" of posting the information, according to the law. Also under new law, candidates for judicial office or circulating or signing nomination papers would not have to list their names and addresses. Instead, they would file a confidential certification of residency with the Wisconsin Elections Commission. The protections apply to Supreme Court justices or former justices; municipal, circuit, tribal, reserve, and appellate judges and former judges; and court commissioners and former court commissioners. “Immediate family” is defined in the law as a judicial officer's spouse; a child of the judicial officer or of the judicial officer's spouse, including a foster child or an adult child living with the judicial officer; a parent of the judicial officer or the judicial officer's spouse; or any other person who resides at the judicial officer's residence. Personal information, as defined in the law, includes a home address; home or personal mobile telephone number; personal email address; Social Security number; driver's license number; federal tax identification number or state tax identification number; bank account or credit or debit card information; license plate number or other unique identifiers of vehicles regularly used by a judicial officer or a family member; identification of minor children; a full date of birth; employment location, including the name or address of an employer and employment schedules; and marital status. Employment information does not include information about employment by a government agency.  Gov. Tony Evers signing AB965, AB966, and AB967 on Wednesday, March 27, 2024 |
Donate
Help WJI advocate for justice in Wisconsin
|
RSS Feed