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.
0 Comments
 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 By Alexandria Staubach Gov. Tony Evers has been busy considering bills from the Legislature, tackling 51 bills on Dec. 6 alone. In what WJI sees as a win for the criminal justice system, Evers vetoed Senate Bill 86/Assembly Bill 57, which would have erased prosecutorial discretion to dismiss or amend certain charges without prior authorization from the court and prohibited deferred-prosecution sentences for crimes. WJI opposed the bill’s lack of clear procedure for dismissal authorization and its prohibition of deferred prosecutions in appropriate cases. Those outcomes would have increased burdens on the criminal justice system without providing appropriate resources to deal with the fallout. Voting and criminal justice legislation signed into law by Evers included the following: Assembly Bill 335 (Wisconsin Act 52) Specifies that if a candidate is convicted of certain election crimes, a court must order dissolution of the candidate’s committee and return of unencumbered campaign funds; also requires the court to appoint a new treasurer for the committee to carry this out. Senate Bill 283 (Wisconsin Act 53) Provides that if a municipality, county, or commission chooses to broadcast canvassing proceedings live in any election, including live stream or on the internet, the same entity must record the broadcast; the recording must be retained for 22 months. Senate Bill 433 (Wisconsin Act 54) Modifies current law so the requirement that presidential primary absentee ballots be sent at least 47 days in advance of the election applies only to military and overseas voters; all other voters will be sent the presidential primary absentee ballot at least 21 days in advance. Assembly Bill 36 (Wisconsin Act 58) Creates a six-month time limit for the state crime laboratories to process sexual assault kits and an expedited 60-day timeline under certain circumstances. Assembly Bill 166 (Wisconsin Act 61) Expands the definition of “sexual contact” to include instruction by a victim to touch bodily fluids with the purpose to degrade or humiliate the victim sexually or arouse or gratify the perpetrator for purposes of crimes against children and sexual assault.  Gov. Evers this week signed bills imposing harsher sentences for reckless driving and carjacking.
“Reckless driving and other dangerous behaviors are putting our kids, families, and communities at risk all across our state, and we must do more at the state level to address dangerous behavior on our roads,” he said in a press release. Senate Bill 76, now Wisconsin Act 10, increases the maximum penalty for carjacking from 40 years in prison to 60 years in prison. It also recognizes and defines carjacking as a separate crime. Assembly Bill 55, now Wisconsin Act 9, increases penalties for several driving-related offenses. WJI has written about both measures previously, here and here. Evers also complained that the Joint Finance Committee stripped some traffic-related items from his proposed state budget. Those measures, he said, included:
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.   Evers By Gretchen Schuldt
Gov. Tony Evers has signed into law tougher new penalties for crimes committed against anyone at least 60 years old. The bill also allows older people seeking domestic violence, individual-at-risk, or harassment restraining order to appear in a court hearing by telephone or through audiovisual means. Currently, people seeking restraining orders appear in court in person. “Aging and older Wisconsinites are particularly vulnerable to financial and physical abuse and exploitation, and unfortunately, we are seeing a devastating and concerning rise in these crimes,” Evers said. "This bill is an important bipartisan action to help put an end to elder abuse and protect some of our most vulnerable loved ones and neighbors.” Evers ran for office promising to reduce the prison population. Under the new law:
In the abuse category, there were 2,148 cases or calls about financial abuse, 717 about emotional abuse, 650 about physical abuse, 41 about sexual abuse, 14 about unreasonable confinement or restraint, and four about treatment without consent. Of all the reports, including those for neglect and self-neglect, more than half – 52.5% – were either unsubstantiated or unable to be substantiated. In another signing, Evers signed a bill that regulates police use of force. It creates standards for when police can use force, creates a duty to report improper use of force, and creates a duty to intervene or prevent improper use of force. vers vetoed a bill that would have reduced shared revenue payments to counties and municipalities that reduce police, firefighter, or emergency responder funding or personnel. |
Donate
Help WJI advocate for justice in Wisconsin
|
RSS Feed