|
By Margo Kirchner
The Wisconsin Court of Appeals last week held that a $20,000 municipal forfeiture for parking commercial trucks in a residential driveway was unconstitutionally excessive. District 2 Judge Mark Gundrum issued the one-judge decision, overturning the sanction imposed by Lakeside Municipal Court on a city of Fond du Lac citation. Dennis Murray appealed from the judgment finding him guilty of violating an ordinance prohibiting parking a commercial walk-in truck in a residential area. Murray had argued at trial in municipal court that his two vehicles met exceptions in the ordinance for tow trucks or vehicles servicing a property. The municipal court found the exceptions did not apply and imposed a $20,549.50 forfeiture for the violation: $281.50 per day for the more than 70 days elapsing between issuance of the citation and trial. Gundrum affirmed the municipal court’s finding that Murray violated the ordinance. However, he agreed with Murray that the total forfeiture violated federal and state constitutional provisions prohibiting excessive fines. Gundrum stated that the federal excessive fines clause in the Eighth Amendment and state law limit a government’s power to extract payments as punishment. Fond du Lac argued that the forfeiture amount was really about nuisance abatement rather than punishment. Gundrum rejected the argument, as the city did not bring a nuisance abatement civil lawsuit but instead issued a citation resulting in a punitive forfeiture. Gundrum applied a proportionality test pursuant to state case law. He found that the city failed to rebut Murray’s argument that the amount imposed was grossly disproportionate to the gravity of his offense. Gundrum remanded the case to the municipal court to impose “an appropriate forfeiture.”
0 Comments
 By Erik Reinthaler WJI Intern On a Thursday morning in July, people trickled into Racine Municipal Court for a docket made up mostly of traffic and ordinance violations. Some seemed to know where to go and what to do. Others needed to be reminded to check in on a computer near the courtroom entrance. As more people arrived, even other court-goers began pointing newcomers toward the sign-in. Once court started, cases moved quickly. Defendants came forward, entered their pleas and explained what had brought them to court. Some cases were resolved within minutes. Others took more time as defendants asked questions or discussed their circumstances with the judge. By then, the routine was becoming familiar to me. Racine was one of six Wisconsin municipal courts I observed over the summer, along with Green Bay, Manitowoc, Little Chute, Mid-Moraine Municipal Court in Hartford, and Lakeside Municipal Court in the Fond du Lac area. Many of the same types of cases appeared from court to court, including speeding, automobile insurance and licensing violations, underage drinking, and other ordinance violations. What differed was the experience around them. Sometimes those differences were apparent before a case was even called: how easy it was to find the courtroom, where defendants checked in, or how the process was explained. Others emerged at the bench, in how judges interacted with defendants and how much room there was to address the circumstances behind a citation. My observations offer only a limited look at Wisconsin's municipal court system. I spent different amounts of time in each court and saw different types and numbers of cases. Still, the visits showed how differently this part of Wisconsin's court system can operate from one community to another. That variation takes place within a system of more than 200 municipal courts across Wisconsin. Unlike the state's circuit courts, municipal courts have limited jurisdiction and handle violations of civil municipal ordinances rather than criminal cases. The cases generally involve less serious violations than those heard in circuit court, but they can still result in forfeitures and consequences involving a person's driving privileges. Getting through the door Some differences between courts arose before anyone appeared in front of a judge. At Mid-Moraine Municipal Court, it was clear where to go. Signs posted throughout the small building directed people toward the courtroom, and a staff member near the entrance checked people in and directed them where to wait. Green Bay Municipal Court had its own dedicated building and a single main entrance, so finding the court itself was straightforward. Once inside, however, no one was stationed near the entrance to direct people. Defendants had to notice a sign inside the courtroom telling them to register, though a court clerk helped those who appeared unsure of the process. Lakeside Municipal Court presented a different setting altogether. The court, which serves several municipalities in the Fond du Lac area, met in the North Fond du Lac Community Center, where another event was taking place in a neighboring room. A sign directed people to the municipal courtroom, but there was no formal check-in when I arrived. Instead, the judge called the names of people listed on the docket, including many who were not present, and defendants came forward as their names were called. The setting occasionally made itself known: for part of the session, a lawnmower working just outside the courtroom window provided some background noise. Little Chute was the only court where I encountered an issue simply trying to observe. I was told that I needed to speak with the clerk and get the judge's approval before sitting in on court. I explained that I was there as an observer and was eventually allowed into the courtroom, though I was asked why I wanted to watch. None of the other municipal courts I visited required me to get permission to observe. Wisconsin law generally requires court proceedings to be open to the public. Wisconsin Statute § 757.14 provides that court hearings are public and may be freely attended, subject to limited exceptions. Understanding what is happening Once a case was called, defendants were generally asked to enter one of three pleas: not guilty, guilty, or no contest. Courts varied in how much they explained those options, and some defendants also needed help understanding the underlying violation they were accused of committing. At Lakeside, the judge began proceedings by explaining the three possible pleas to the courtroom. He described what it meant to plead not guilty, guilty, or no contest and explained some of the consequences of each choice. In Manitowoc, the confusion was not just about how to plead. A man facing a disorderly conduct citation told the judge he did not understand what disorderly conduct meant. The judge explained the elements of the ordinance violation in everyday terms before discussing the man's plea options. When the man remained uncertain about how to proceed, the judge entered a not-guilty plea on his behalf and gave him a date to speak with the municipal prosecutor. A similar situation arose at Mid-Moraine when a woman appeared on a citation involving an allegedly vicious dog. There was confusion over the ordinance listed on the citation, and the woman did not understand what conduct could cause a dog to be considered vicious. The judge pulled up the ordinance and explained what it covered. When the woman remained unsure how to proceed, the judge entered a not-guilty plea on her behalf so she could speak with the prosecutor. In Green Bay, the explanation concerned what would happen next. The judge told one defendant not to pay the citations before speaking with the prosecutor, explaining that payment would result in a no-contest plea being entered. Across the courts I observed, confusion at times arose over the charge itself, what a plea meant, or what would happen next. Those questions sometimes required judges to slow down before a case could move forward. Language access Language barriers came up in three of the courts I observed, but the assistance available was different in each. In Green Bay, a Spanish-speaking court clerk interpreted for a defendant as the judge explained the consequences of an operating-while-intoxicated citation. Through the clerk, the defendant was able to explain that he worked as a delivery driver and was concerned about how losing his license would affect his job. At Lakeside Municipal Court, the arrangement was less formal. When a defendant with limited English proficiency came before the judge, another person in the courtroom stepped in to interpret. When I followed up with the court later, staff said Lakeside generally uses LanguageLine (a telephonic service with trained interpreters), but they could not say what had been used during my July 2 visit. The assistance I saw that day was provided in person, not through LanguageLine. Racine took a similarly informal approach. Someone already in the building helped a defendant communicate with the court. When I followed up afterward, court staff said the person would have been either a defendant's family member or a city employee. From what I observed, she appeared to be a city employee, though I was unable to determine who she was or what role she held. The differences stood out to me given Wisconsin Justice Initiative's advocacy for greater access to professional, trained interpreters in municipal court rather than the court’s use of friends, family members, staff members, or other untrained individuals. Being able to understand the court—and to be understood by it—is a basic part of participating in that process. The role of judicial discretion The outcome of a municipal citation was not always fixed by the time a defendant walked into court. Traffic cases provided some of the clearest examples. Across most of the courts I observed, defendants had opportunities to seek reductions on their citations. Judges often considered driving history when reducing demerit points. In other cases, defendants were encouraged to plead not guilty and speak with the municipal prosecutor before resolving their cases. Insurance and licensing cases frequently turned on what a defendant had done since receiving the citation. Across several courts, defendants who showed they had insurance at the time they were cited had charges dismissed or reduced. Judges also considered whether defendants had taken steps to correct licensing or registration problems. Racine stood out in several cases involving defendants who arrived in court still without insurance. Rather than resolving the citation immediately, the judge suggested they plead not guilty and gave them time to obtain insurance before returning to resolve the case. Municipal prosecutors played a role in resolving cases. In Racine, Lakeside, Green Bay, and Mid-Moraine, defendants who pleaded not guilty could speak with a prosecutor before resolving their citations. Manitowoc handled the process by phone, giving defendants a date and time to call the prosecutor for a pretrial conference. For defendants, that meant the citation they arrived with was not necessarily the citation they left with, after plea negotiation with the prosecutor or amendment by the judge. The tone of the courtroom The judges I observed also differed in how they spoke to the people appearing before them. Racine stood out for its conversational tone. The judge greeted each defendant as they came forward, usually with a “good morning,” and regularly asked people to explain what had happened rather than relying only on the citation in front of him. There were lighter moments, too. When a woman approached with her young child, the judge joked that she had brought her lawyer with her. During another case, a conversation with an older defendant turned into a brief exchange about their ages and staying positive. The humor was usually brief before the judge returned to the case. The judge spent time talking defendants through situations that did not have an immediate answer. One woman explained that she had recently gotten a job but had not yet registered or insured her vehicle. The judge asked about her circumstances and discussed what steps she could take before the case moved forward. At Mid-Moraine, the judge's familiarity with some of the people appearing before her shaped the interactions in a different way. She remembered several young defendants from previous appearances and had made graduating from high school part of how she approached their cases. Two returned with diplomas. She congratulated them, shook their hands, and dismissed their citations. A third young woman returned without one. She had fallen behind on required hours, needed additional testing, and still had a packet of schoolwork to complete. The judge asked whose fault it was that she had fallen behind. The woman answered that it was hers. There was a long pause. The judge told her that she had wanted her to finish and that the point was not simply the money owed on the citation. She asked when the woman expected to complete summer school and whether she had anything from the school showing that she had finished. Without proof of graduation, the judge found her guilty and imposed the forfeiture, but gave her another opportunity to bring proof that she had completed high school when she returned on another citation. In Green Bay, the judge's conversations with defendants sometimes extended beyond the immediate citation as well. One defendant told the court that he was homeless and planning to move to California. The judge asked where he planned to go and what he would do once he arrived. When it became clear that the defendant had few details worked out, the judge encouraged him to think through the move more carefully and have a plan in place. He ended the exchange by wishing him luck. Most of these interactions lasted only a few minutes. But for the person standing before the judge, those few minutes were their experience of the court, and the judge played a large role in shaping it. When a fine is not just a fine Even relatively routine municipal violations could carry substantial financial consequences. But imposing a forfeiture was often only the beginning of the conversation. Across the courts I observed, judges regularly discussed when defendants could pay and, in some cases, how much they could afford. At Mid-Moraine, the judge generally allowed defendants 60 days to pay and regularly asked about their ability to do so. When one young woman said she could not pay a past due $187 forfeiture, the judge gave her another 30 days. Defendants were told to contact the court if they needed a payment plan. In Green Bay, a man who had recently started working was given three additional months to pay what he owed. When he raised rent and other expenses, the judge worked out a schedule of about $100 per month. Similar flexibility appeared elsewhere. In Racine, the judge asked one defendant facing a larger forfeiture how much he could afford to pay, and defendants were commonly given 90 days. At Lakeside, defendants were generally given 60 days to pay. In Manitowoc, the judge asked defendants how much time they needed and indicated a willingness to work with them on payment. Courts warned defendants that unpaid forfeitures could be sent for debt collection. For many defendants, though, paying what they owed would take time, and judges often worked with them on how much time they needed. Questions the observations raise After observing six municipal courts, I was left with questions about how much the experience of municipal court should vary from one community to another. Some variation is inherent in the system. Wisconsin's municipal courts are local, the nontraffic ordinances they enforce differ, and no two cases or defendants are exactly alike. Judicial discretion also gives courts room to consider the circumstances of the people appearing before them. But not every difference I observed stemmed from the facts of a case. How easy should it be to figure out where to go and what to do? What should happen when someone does not understand a charge or a plea? What language assistance should be available? And how much should the experience of appearing in court depend on the approach of the judge behind the bench? For someone who rarely enters a courtroom, a municipal citation may be their first or only direct experience with Wisconsin's court system. Whether they leave understanding what happened, what they owe, and what comes next can shape what that experience means to them. That makes what happens in these courtrooms worth watching. For someone who rarely enters a courtroom, a municipal citation may be their first or only direct experience with Wisconsin's court system. Whether they leave understanding what happened, what they owe, and what comes next can shape what that experience means to them.  Milwaukee Municipal Court entrance in January 2023. Photograph by Margo Kirchner. 1By Alexandria Staubach
Nearly a year after Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge David Borowski found Milwaukee Municipal Court in contempt for failing to record indigency hearings as ordered, the municipal court has agreed to record all hearings for seven years. The agreement is part of the settlement of a lawsuit brought by a client of Legal Action of Wisconsin, alleging that the municipal court failed to comply with statutory obligations to record certain hearings. Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Paul R. Van Grunsven approved the settlement agreement last month. In December 2024, Borowski had ordered the municipal court to record certain proceedings, including hearings regarding poverty or motions to reopen, as required by law. When the municipal court failed to comply, Borowski found the municipal court in contempt, saying the lower court had made “insufficient attempts” to comply with his December 2024 order to record indigency hearings. Legal Action Attorney Susan Lund provided evidence that between May 5–19, 2025, the municipal court had held 54 hearings in which indigency was relevant, but recorded less than half. Borowski called the lower court’s failure to comply “egregious” and threatened it with a $1,000-per-day fine for any further failure to comply. He also ordered the municipal court to pay all reasonable fees for Legal Action in its fight to enforce compliance. Legal Action claimed $73,225 in attorneys’ fees in a subsequent motion. Milwaukee Municipal Court disputed the court’s rulings along the way, including filing an appeal of Borowski’s contempt finding. The settlement agreement was signed by City Attorney Evan Goyke and Legal Action’s Lund. In the agreement, the municipal court agreed to drop its appeal of the contempt finding and Legal Action agreed to supervise the municipal court’s compliance with recording laws moving forward. The settlement agreement gives little discretion to the municipal court: It must record all hearings, whether required by law or not, for at least seven years—though the recording is called “voluntary.” The court can terminate the agreement before then only if the Legislature updates relevant statutes. After seven years the court can apply for termination with court approval. Per the agreement, the city will pay Legal Action $4,999.99 for attorney’s fees. The parties also agreed that 60 days prior to any termination motion the municipal court must make itself available to “meet and confer” with Legal Action for the nonprofit law firm to determine whether it would join in the termination motion. Any notice to Legal Action of a termination motion “shall demonstrate” how the municipal court “will ensure substantial compliance” with statutory requirements. If termination is ultimately pursued, the agreement sets the standard for a circuit court judge to determine whether the municipal court has demonstrated adequate compliance mechanisms exist to ensure substantial compliance with statutory recording requirements. If not, “the Circuit Court shall deny the motion.” The agreement includes a provision for Legal Action to review three weeks’ worth of municipal court recordings in the first six months after termination and for the circuit court, on the request of Legal Action, to hold a hearing to review whether the municipal court has maintained substantial compliance. Should records demonstrate at that time that the municipal court failed to record more than 10% of the hearings as required by law, the municipal court “shall be ordered to resume its agreement to voluntarily record all hearings,” for at least another year and pay Legal Action reasonable attorney fees. The municipal court would then have to wait another year before filing a new motion to terminate the agreement. Meanwhile, during the seven years of the settlement agreement, if Legal Action of Wisconsin believes the municipal court is in violation and notifies the court of an issue, the municipal court would get 60 days to either dispute the violation charge or cure. Municipal judge says 1923 Supreme Court case bars public use of private beach on Lake Michigan1/28/2026 By Alexandria Staubach A Wisconsin Supreme Court case decided in 1923 controls public access to Lake Michigan’s beaches, says Shorewood Municipal Court Judge (and WJI Executive Director) Margo Kirchner. In a written opinion, Kirchner declined to adopt the argument made by Paul Florsheim, a Shorewood resident and professor at UWM, that the "public trust doctrine" permits walking on beaches between Lake Michigan and lakefront homes. Florsheim, who was ticketed for trespass earlier this year after walking the beach north of Atwater Park, argued that the doctrine permitted public access to the lake’s beaches between the water’s edge and what is known as the ordinary high-water mark, or the area between the water’s edge and the point on the shore where the action of the water leaves a distinct mark. While “the public trust doctrine requires the Wisconsin government to protect the state’s navigable waters for public benefit,” wrote Kirchner, “to the extent discernible, the various activities considered to be navigation or otherwise protected by the Supreme Court for purposes of the public trust doctrine have been solely water-based,” she said. “Navigation,” according to Kirchner’s reading of the relevant case law, does not include walking the beach. According to the opinion, “Florsheim point(ed) to no Wisconsin case holding that an activity occurring out of the water constitutes navigation or other protected activity under the public trust doctrine.” The controlling case Kirchner cited is Doemel v. Jantz. “As a municipal court judge,” wrote Kirchner, “I cannot disregard Doemel, whether rightly or wrongly decided. I must follow it.” You can read the full opinion here.  By Alexandria Staubach Milwaukee Municipal Court has been held in contempt for its failure to comply with an order directing it to record hearings. Milwaukee County Circuit Judge David L. Borowski on Monday found that Milwaukee Municipal Court (MMC) made “insufficient attempts” to comply with his December 2024 order instructing MMC to record certain proceedings as required by municipal court procedural law. Borowski admonished MMC for its failure to comply with his order, calling the violations “egregious,” especially given MMC’s special position as a court charged with enforcing law. He said the failure to comply was “exacerbated by the fact that the only burden imposed on MCC to record during a hearing, is for someone to simply press ‘record.’” Borowski said the facts demonstrated conduct that was “so consistently lacking and preposterous” that MMC’s failure to comply exceeds the intentionality standard for contempt and “might very well be a knowing—and intentional—disregard of this court’s orders.” Saying that MMC was "clearly only capable of following" the statute requiring recording of certain hearings by being forced to record everything, Borowski ordered MMC "to RECORD ALL COURT HEARINGS moving forward." (Caps in original.) Borowski sanctioned MMC with a fine of $1,000 per day if it fails to comply with the new order requiring recording of all hearings, but gave the court 14 days before fines would start. He also ordered MMC to pay all reasonable attorney’s fees of Legal Action of Wisconsin for counsel's efforts since December 2024 to force compliance. Since December, Borowski has rejected as insufficient two policies proffered by MMC. In April, Borowski set forth an exact list of hearings that MMC must record. At that time, Borowski told the municipal court to develop a new policy that “must explicitly require electronic recording of ALL of the following”:
In Monday’s order, Borowski laid out how despite MMC’s failed attempts to develop a policy, it has still been subject to his order to record the enumerated hearings. Nevertheless, MMC persists in failing to record them. Petitioner’s attorney Susan Lund sought proof of compliance after the December order. In the documents MMC provided to show its response, Lund found that between May 5 and May 19 MMC held 54 hearings where a defendant’s indigency was relevant and thus required recording. MMC recorded fewer than half of those hearings. MMC “has admitted they have the capacity to record EVERY hearing that they hold, with the only inconveniences involved in doing so being, charitably, hitting a ‘record’ button, and uncharitably, more easily being held accountable for the content of their hearings,” wrote Borowski. "Respondents, by their conduct following this court's December summary judgment order, have shown what is at least a complete inability to follow, if not a calculated disregard, for this court's orders," he wrote. Wisconsin law defines contempt of court as intentional disobedience, resistance or obstruction of the authority, process or order of a court. Because of judicial rotations, Judge Paul Van Grunsven will decide the exact amount of attorney's fees MMC will owe Legal Action of Wisconsin.  By Margo Kirchner
Though many who pay municipal tickets do not realize it, they are funding myriad government operations that may have little to do with their conduct. Municipal tickets for violations like speeding, illegal turns, or disorderly conduct include a "deposit" amount, which the defendant can pay to avoid going to court or which the judge may impose after a finding of guilt. That deposit amount starts with a base forfeiture number, to which are added at least four extra charges. For some violations, the total amount due far exceeds the initial base amount for the offense. Take, for instance, a ticket with a base forfeiture amount of $10, for conduct such as a signal violation by a bicyclist or electric scooter rider. By statute, the municipal court must add a penalty assessment of 26% ($2.60), which goes to the Wisconsin Department of Justice to fund law enforcement training. Next comes a $13 crime lab and drug law enforcement surcharge, and then a $10 jail surcharge. The former flows through the Wisconsin Department of Administration to fund equipment and operations in the state crime laboratory and activities relating to drug law enforcement and DNA evidence. The latter, as its name suggests, goes to the county to pay for physical improvements and educational and medical services in the jail. That the bicyclist's signal violation has nothing to do with the crime lab, drug enforcement, or DNA evidence doesn't matter. Nor does the fact that municipal offenses result in forfeitures, not jail time, as the penalty. The surcharges are added to almost every ticket. Only a few offenses, such as failure to wear a seat belt or failure to carry proof of vehicle insurance, escape the extra surcharges. Then the municipal court tacks on its own costs from $15 to $38. Most of that goes to the municipality, but $5 of the court costs go to the Wisconsin Department of Administration for the state's general fund. Municipalities can set their own court cost amount within the statutory range. Presumably the money helps fund municipal court operations. A bill introduced earlier this summer in both houses of the Legislature (AB 320/SB333) would raise the range for municipal court costs to between $42 and $51, meaning that the lowest end of the range would exceed today’s highest permitted court costs charge and the deposit amounts on municipal tickets would rise statewide. The bills were referred to committees and await hearings. Assuming court costs at the current maximum, after all the extra charges: that $10 ticket costs the defendant $73.60—more than seven times the initial base amount. A common ticket for speeding up to 15 MPH above the limit starts at $30, resulting in a total deposit amount of $98.80—more than three times the initial base amount. Base forfeiture amounts of $50 and $100 become $124 and $187 respectively. A $150 base forfeiture amount becomes $250, while a $200 base forfeiture amount becomes $313. Things get even more expensive for those found guilty of a reckless driving or intoxicated driving offense. Those tickets generally start with a base forfeiture amount of $150 to $300. But then there’s a $535 “driver improvement surcharge” and a $75 “safe ride program surcharge.” Thus, a base amount of $250 becomes $986. The driver improvement surcharge is split between the state and county for mental health, disability, alcoholism, and drug abuse services. The safe ride program surcharge goes toward funding free rides home from Wisconsin Tavern League bars. If the judge orders installation of an ignition interlock device, another fee of $50 for the county gets tacked on. The base forfeiture amounts for traffic offenses are set statewide. For nontraffic offenses, the municipal court sets the deposit amount within a range approved by the municipality. At sentencing, though, the municipal judge could still impose any amount within the approved range. In other words, the deposit amount is a guideline for those paying their tickets, but the judge could go up or down in the end. Yet, even with all the added fees in municipal courts, tickets there cost less than in circuit courts, where there's another surcharge to fund the justice information system and court support services. A speeding ticket charged in circuit court with a $50 base amount (for speeding up to 15 MPH over the limit) costs $200.50. In early 2023, WJI called on Gov. Tony Evers to use the state’s budget surplus to eliminate or reduce court fees and surcharges because of their negative impact on the poor. WJI asked the governor to look specifically at the surcharges unrelated to the specific case at issue. In other words, drop the crime lab fee in cases that do not involve crime lab work, etc. WJI argued that at the very least, court fees and surcharges should be redirected to support the underfunded state court system rather than other parts of government. As this year’s legislative bills suggest, proposals continue to seek an increase, rather than a decrease, in the various fees and surcharges. By Alexandria Staubach It is difficult to find two of the three Milwaukee Municipal Court judges on the bench doing work visible to the public. That is Wisconsin Justice Initiative’s conclusion after visiting the court several times from November 2024 through last week. Specifically in branches 1 and 3, the lights may be on but often no one is home. The reasons could include a combination of a 77% drop in case load since 2018 and the two judges continuing to hold court virtually, even post-pandemic. Cases filed in the court have declined from a peak of nearly 86,000 total filings in 2018 to less than 24,000 in 2024. WJI staff visiting Milwaukee Municipal Court found that in contrast to visits to Milwaukee County Circuit Court, there was never a line to get in, and the waiting room was generally empty. While the municipal court officially begins at 8:30 a.m., Branch 3, assigned to Presiding Judge Phil Chavez, was often locked, closed, with the lights off sometimes as early as 9:00 a.m. In Branch 1, assigned to Judge Valarie Hill, WJI staff often found the same thing: the door locked with nothing happening inside. When these judges were on the bench, they consistently appeared virtually by Zoom. WJI never observed Hill or Chavez physically present in the courthouse. Branch 2 Judge Molly Gena generally appears in person, hearing cases from the bench in her courtroom, even when defendants have elected to appear virtually. During the pandemic, the court adopted a policy that permitted virtual appearances, and it seems Hill and Chavez never came back to court. They appear virtually for everything from initial appearances to trials. Whether based on a formal policy of the court or merely the desires of Hill and Chavez, it is often only the defendant and bailiff in the courtroom, and sometimes a clerk. The judge appears on screen. Observers must attend in person. There is no public facing forum for the public to join or view hearings by Zoom or live streaming.  Presiding Judge Phil Chavez on the bench (on Zoom) on June 6, 2025. Photograph by Alexandria Staubach. While virtual appearances provide a convenient means to deal with citations for individuals without reliable transportation, who struggle with childcare, or who might have to take significant time off from work to go downtown, it is unclear what benefit is conveyed to the general public for the judges to be out of the courtroom. Milwaukee County Circuit Court also permitted virtual appearances during the pandemic but has generally returned to in-person proceedings with a judge on the bench. Much about Milwaukee Municipal Court procedure changed due to the pandemic and continues that way. For example, a defendant in 2019 could walk into Milwaukee Municipal Court and expect to resolve an outstanding case, whether or not they were officially on the court’s docket. The court’s website still reflects that walk-ins are suspended and will “remain suspended until further notice.” In October of 2024, when the court’s website indicated that walk-in appearances were suspended, WJI asked the court whether it was possible to walk in and resolve a case. A court services assistant said “Milwaukee Municipal Court is not doing walk-ins for court. You can appear at the reception window and fill out any forms needed regarding your case, they will be submitted to the Judge and the Judge will correspond accordingly.” However, people have not stopped coming to the court with the expectation that they can resolve their cases. WJI spoke last week with Corina Wage, owner of CJ’s Pub. She came in to pay an old citation. “They told me ‘no,’” Wage said, adding “that I have to reopen my case on paper.” What Wage did not know is that Chavez was present in his courtroom, albeit virtually, poised to finish a docket before 10:00 a.m. The court’s current policy is that one must have an appointment to come to court. The website reflects the following method to schedule defendants: “The date of your first court appearance is written on your citation (ticket), summons or complaint. The Court conducts hearings virtually and in person. Prior to the court date, you will receive a letter with steps to register. You MUST register in advance and notify the Court if you will appear virtually or in person.” Meanwhile, the municipal court docket has shrunk. The year-end total of filed cases for 2024 was 23,698, while the total in 2018 was 85,984. The year before the pandemic, total charges filed were just under 60,000, and the court returned to approximately that number in 2022. But case numbers have dropped substantially since then.  ​Chart created by Alexandria Staubach using data from Milwaukee Municipal Court available at https://municipalcourt.milwaukee.gov/resources/reports-and-statistics. The decrease in case load is consistent with a Wisconsin Policy Forum report issued earlier this year that showed dramatic decreases in overall Milwaukee Police Department arrests for more serious matters, “proactive” policing, and citations for driving offenses.  Chart created by Alexandria Staubach using data from Milwaukee Municipal Court available at https://municipalcourt.milwaukee.gov/resources/reports-and-statistics. While the court’s docket has decreased, its judges’ pay has increased. Milwaukee’s three municipal judges were each paid $133,049.02 in 2015. They now make $153,006.62 annually. Then as now, they are among the highest paid elected city officials. Their pay is exceeded only by that for the mayor ($169,436.28) and city attorney ($169,436.02).
 Judge Valarie Hill on the bench (on Zoom) on May 9, 2025, at 9:28 a.m. Photograph by Alexandria Staubach.
 By Alexandria Staubach After a loss in the Wisconsin Court of Appeals by service provider JusticePoint, Milwaukee’s municipal court diversion program seems poised to sunset, despite strong community support for the program and a two-year court battle to keep it going. JusticePoint has long facilitated the Municipal Court Alternatives Program, helping those who cannot afford to pay Milwaukee municipal tickets complete community service options and connecting defendants with housing resources and drug and alcohol treatment. JusticePoint provided such services for four decades, but Milwaukee Municipal Court notified JusticePoint in spring 2023 that it was terminating the contract under a “convenience” clause. JusticePoint fought the termination under the Wisconsin Fair Dealership Law. It initially won a temporary restraining order continuing services, but then lost on the merits in Milwaukee County Circuit Court. A stay from the Court of Appeals kept the court alternatives program in place during JusticePoint’s appeal. JusticePoint lost that appeal last month. The appeals court decision hinged on whether JusticePoint distributed its own services or instead provided services on behalf of the city.  White Chief Judge Maxine White authored the opinion, joined by Judges Pedro Colón and Sara Geenen.
JusticePoint argued that it was distributing services on behalf of the city. If so, the fair dealership law would have raised the city’s obligations for termination of the JusticePoint contract and required “good cause, proper notice, and an opportunity to cure,” White wrote. However, the appeals court found that the contract between JusticePoint and the city “appears to be a typical vendor-vendee relationship,” and “JusticePoint was selling and distributing its own services.” Thus, “the circuit court properly dismissed JusticePoint’s complaint and denied Justice Point’s request for an injunction,” White wrote. "As it has been since the beginning, our primary interest is to ensure that these services remain available to the residents of Milwaukee. If nothing else, our lawsuit has kept these services in place for the past two years," said Edward Gordon, chief operating officer of JusticePoint, in an email to WJI last week. The city argued that applying the fair dealership law to the JusticePoint contract would “effectively swallow public procurement law” and “would make it nearly impossible for a government entity to ever terminate a contract that it determines is no longer serving the public good,” according to the appeals court decision. The city attorney’s office represented Milwaukee Municipal Court in the lawsuit. “We applaud the Court of Appeals affirmation of the Circuit Court in their holding that no dealership relationship existed in the city’s contracting for services with JusticePoint. Such a precedent would be harmful to Milwaukee—and all local governments—and limit the ability to provide the very type of innovative, community-based programming that’s needed,” City Attorney Evan Goyke told WJI yesterday. “The city has always acknowledged the importance of programming and alternative resolutions for eligible individuals in the Municipal Court system,” Goyke said. Concerns remain about who or what will replace the alternatives program if it now sunsets. WJI board member Jim Gramling, who served as a Milwaukee Municipal Court judge for 21 years before retirement, filed a “friend of the court” brief in the JusticePoint appeal. "A significant percentage of defendants coming through the court live in poverty or struggle with addictions or mental health challenges," he told WJI this week. "Nearly 95% of the defendants proceed without an attorney.” Gramling said he was unaware of any provider ready to step in to replace JusticePoint. “Without the services provided by MCAP, those defendants are destined to be ground up in the system,” he said. When the city first attempted to terminate the JusticePoint contract in 2023, WJI asked then-chief court administrator Sheldyn Himle whether services would continue with a different provider. At the time, Himle responded that “Milwaukee Municipal Court’s intervention/alternatives program will continue, just not with the current vendor.” WJI reached out to current Milwaukee Municipal Court chief administrator Tea Norfolk following the court of appeals decision. She declined to comment on when or whether services would resume with another provider. Wisconsin Justice Initiative presented its second annual "Advocate for Justice Award" to Parker White and Evan Bondoc of the Foley & Lardner law firm. White and Bondoc represented WJI pro bono regarding a 2024 rule petition in the Wisconsin Supreme Court to increase the use of professional interpreters in municipal courts statewide. White and Bondoc provided excellent representation, and the award acknowledges their skill, effort, and dedication in advocating for needed change. Executive Director Margo Kirchner presented the award at WJI's May 14 fundraiser at Turner Hall in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. For more than a year, White and Bondoc managed meetings, drafted a proposed new rule and well-reasoned briefs, and provided solid and insightful counsel. This past December they argued WJI's rule change petition before the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Although the court did not agree with WJI's proposed new rule and denied the petition, every justice said that the issue was an important one, and the court referred the issue to the Wisconsin Judicial Council for further study. Since the rule petition ended, work to improve municipal court interpreter services continues, and White and Bondoc continue to provide strategic advice. By Alexandria Staubach
Milwaukee Municipal Court continues to dodge its obligation to record hearings by proposing an insufficient new policy in response to a court order. Milwaukee County Circuit Judge David Borowski rejected the municipal court’s proffered new policy but clarified some of the municipal court’s responsibilities. Borowski held in December 2024 that the municipal court and its judges had consistently failed to comply with statutorily imposed recording requirements for hearings on motions to reopen as well as hearings addressing a defendant’s ability to pay. Such hearings must be recorded so an appellate court can review them. Borowski placed the municipal court under his supervision and ordered the municipal court to comply within 90 days. He reserved the right to hold hearings every three to six months to monitor compliance. Over the years, Milwaukee Municipal Court developed several different categories of hearings and limited recordings to only what it called “indigency hearings,” even though judges regularly took up a defendant’s ability to pay in other hearings as well. Borowski found in December that names of court proceedings are an invention of Milwaukee Municipal Court and the court could not avoid recording requirements through its naming system. He ordered the municipal court to “fully implement” policies and procedures to electronically record every hearing in which “(1) a decision is made as to a motion to reopen a case (regardless of whether said motion is made orally or in writing, regardless of the label or category assigned to said hearing, and regardless of the ultimate result of the hearing) and (2) a determination is made as to the defendant’s ability to pay a judgment due to poverty (regardless of the ultimate result of the hearing).” In March 2025, Milwaukee Municipal Court submitted to Borowski a plan that purported to bring it into compliance but failed to address key components of his December order. The policy Milwaukee Municipal Court submitted again only applied to “indigency hearings.” Further, it shifted the burden of recording from the municipal court to the court’s bailiffs and said the municipal court would no longer grant “motions to reopen based on pleadings alone but rather schedule a hearing,” as a result of Borowski’s decision. Milwaukee Municipal Court sought clarification from Borowski because it thought his December decision was “reasonably susceptible to more than one interpretation,” asking Borowski to point out the “specific circumstances requiring a hearing in open court” that would trigger the recording requirement. Last week, Borowski found that the proposed policy Milwaukee Municipal Court presented “lacks sufficient clarity to ensure compliance with the Court’s Decision and Order.” He directed the municipal court to develop a new policy that “must explicitly require electronic recording of ALL of the following”:
The new order forbids the municipal court from placing the obligation of recording on bailiffs. “Court staff may be responsible for turning on the recorder, but the policy and procedure must clarify that any recording must be made at the direction of the judge,” Borowski wrote. Milwaukee Municipal Court has 14 days to develop a new policy, Borowski said. Borowski noted that nothing in his December order requires Milwaukee Municipal Court to hold a hearing on a written motion or when a judge would otherwise dispose of a matter by written order. “Judge Borowski’s April 21, 2025 order is very clear guidance to any municipal court that is still unsure which hearings must be electronically recorded,” said Susan Lund, attorney for the plaintiff who brought the case challenging Milwaukee Municipal Court’s recording procedures. |
Donate
Help WJI advocate for justice in Wisconsin
|
RSS Feed