WJI is taking a look at justice-related bills adopted during the 2019-20 session. ​

2019 Act 111 makes possession of any unauthorized item - even if it is otherwise legal - by a person incarcerated in a jail or prison a felony punishable by up to 3 ½ years in prison and a $10,000 fine.

The law was introduced as Senate Bill 70. Its companion bill was Assembly Bill 63. 

The lead authors of SB 70 were State Senators Andre Jacque (R-DePere) and Howard L. Marklein (R-Spring Green). The lead sponsors of AB 63 were State Representatives Ron Tusler (R-Harrison) and James Edming (R-Glen Flora).

Gov. Tony Evers signed it into law on Feb. 28,2020.

Fiscal estimates:

No fiscal estimates were filed.

sBy Gretchen Schuldt

​The Milwaukee Police Department's use-of-force policy does not prohibit the chokeholds or the kind of restraint that Minneapolis police used when they killed George Floyd, records show.

​Milwaukee has adopted just three of eight restriction on use of force recommended by Campaign Zero, an effort to reduce killings by police, according to the campaign.

Fire and Police Commission Executive Director Griselda Aldrete, responding to recent protests in Milwaukee, told the Common Council's Public Safety and Health Committee last week that the commission will review the policy.

Milwaukee's use-of-force policy also keeps secret the some of the weapons that the Police Department can use against protesters and others. The policy does not disclose why the public should not know what can of weapons can be turned against it.

The policy says the secret weapons are not lethal, but that cannot be verified without knowing what they are. Tear gas and rubber bullets also have been described as nonlethal, but they can kill or maim.

Campaign Zero has identified eight restrictions associated with fewer killings by police. Of those, eight, Milwaukee has adopted three – establishing a continuum of force, requiring a warning before shooting, and imposing on officers a duty to intervene if they see an excessive use of force by a colleague.

The campaign also says the city does not require that all other alternatives be exhausted before officers are authorized to shoot, but the Fire and Police Commission last year approved language that says that use of force that may result in serious injury or death "may only be used as a last resort." 

By Margo Kirchner

​Trial courts must issue specific factual findings on why a person is a danger to self or others before extending an involuntary commitment, the Wisconsin Supreme Court recently held.

Moreover, said the court, general concerns regarding a person’s mental state, inability to maintain employment, and inability to care for oneself are not sufficient for a finding of dangerousness. Justice Ann Walsh Bradley authored the court’s opinion in Langlade County v. D.J.W.

Chief Justice Patience Drake Roggensack dissented, saying she would have recommitted D.J.W. on grounds that Langlade County never even raised in Circuit Court or on appeal. Justice Rebecca Grassl Bradley also dissented, on different grounds.

In January 2017, a circuit court in Langlade County found D.J.W. mentally ill, dangerous, and in need of treatment. The court committed D.J.W. to custody for six months and ordered involuntary treatment and medication. In June 2017, Langlade County petitioned to recommit D.J.W. for a year.

The Circuit Court appointed Dr. John Coates to examine D.J.W. in connection with possible recommitment. Though Coates wrote a report following the examination, at the July 2017 recommitment hearing the County presented only Coates’ oral testimony. The report was not admitted as evidence.

Coates testified at the hearing that D.J.W. had schizophrenia, a history of hallucinations over three years, and an illogical thought process with “grandiose illusions.” Coates said D.J.W. reported seeing the devil and hearing voices in the months prior to the hearing and that D.J.W.’s illness was treatable with psychotropic medication.

When asked whether D.J.W. was a danger to himself or others, Coates opined that if D.J.W. were to end treatment he would likely exacerbate his illness and experience hallucinations. But, said Coates, “the greater risk is just his inability to properly care for himself and to properly socialize if he goes untreated.”

Coates noted that D.J.W. had been living with his parents, quit his job because he thought he was the Messiah, and obtained disability benefits. To the doctor, these facts suggested that D.J.W. could not independently care for himself and would be homeless if his parents did not provide shelter. Coates thought D.J.W.’s judgment was still impaired.

Coates testified that he did not know if D.J.W. was suicidal or homicidal. But, he said, acutely psychotic individuals’ actions are unpredictable and for D.J.W. suicidal and homicidal ideations were possible.

Coates reiterated that the “major danger” to D.J.W. was that if he stopped medications he would be delusional and hallucinating and unable to interact appropriately with others. Coates continued: “So the major danger is to himself. I don’t think he’s necessarily a violent man that’s going to go out and harm others.”
​
On cross-examination, when pressed about how D.J.W. quitting his job showed dangerousness, Coates responded that D.J.W. lost his employment and could not provide for his basic needs, had been found disabled, and would be homeless without his parents’ help.

Meanwhile, the number of coronavirus cases reported in state prisons continues to increase, as DOC introduces, belatedly, wider testing. There were 213 people incarcerated at Waupun Correctional Institution who tested positive, a 92 percent positive rate, according to DOC figures. Other positive tests were were recorded at Columbia Correctional Institution (2), Felmers O. Chaney Correctional Center (18), Marshall E. Sherrer Correctional Center (5), Milwaukee Secure Detention Facility (1), and Oshkosh Correctional Institution (8). Thus far, DOC has conducted 4,770 tests at its adult institutions, for a testing rate of about 22%. The results of 1,981 tests are pending. 

Incarcerated people continue to express apprehension and anger about the virus and their treatment in prison. Inmate testimonials are below. They have been edited for length and clarity and to protect the writers' identities

I put in a hsu (Health Services Unit) form saying I wasn't feeling good and I was woke up the next morning at 1 a.m. and they gave me a mask and brought me and my celly to hsu where I was given a flu test which was negative then they gave me the coronavirus test and told me we were being put on quarantine until the results came back....They said we were being the first people going to segregation on quarantine because the hsu unit was full so they said they cleared a wing out in set for us.

So me and my celly were forced to walk ourselves to the hole at 3 a.m. then when I got there they made me strip search and wear restraints just like a seg inmate. I tried to refuse telling them if they are not subject to do this over on the hsu unit then we shouldn't have to do it either and I told them that putting on them restraints against my will when I did nothing wrong gives me flashbacks ...I told them I wasn't trying to go through that again. 

I told them...I need to talk to a psychologist and a white shirt I was told I would see both but the whole time I was in seg I saw neither. I was told if I didn't put the restraints on I would receive a major ticket so I had no choice....I was treated worse than a seg inmate. A few hours after I was there the Sgt came to my door and told me...I had to wear seg oranges and I had to give him my keep-on-person meds which was the only property I had. So I tried to refuse until I was again threatened with a major ticket. I gave up my meds and my greens....I was told we would eventually get our property like the guys on the hsu unit get it they even get there electronics but they did the opposite and took what little property I had. I couldn't even get a book! 

(The man said he developed a migraine.)

By Gretchen Schuldt

When all of this is over, the injustice in Milwaukee will continue, sanctioned by the city's elected officials.
 
Milwaukee will use its police, its judges, and its prosecutors to extract money from protesters and others who come to the attention of police for one reason or another and are erroneously or maliciously ticketed. 

The city spends millions of dollars each year for its law enforcement machinery to extract money from residents, but the people who get ticketed are on their own. 

Everyone who can't afford to hire a private lawyer is expected to somehow magically know the ins and outs of the local laws they are accused of violating so they can effectively defend themselves or make a case for a lower forfeiture.

By Gretchen Schuldt

​Two officers who repeatedly told a suspect that he failed a detector test but failed to tell him the results of that test could not be used in court were key to creating the coercion that invalidated the man’s eventual confession, a State Court of Appeals panel has ruled.

"In particular, we caution law enforcement officers that if they plan to rely on polygraph results in order to elicit a defendant’s confession, they need to inform the defendant that those results are inadmissible in court," Appeals Judge Lisa K. Stark wrote for the divided District III Court of Appeals panel.

The State Supreme Court has questioned the reliability and accuracy of the tests, she said.

The ruling upheld a decision by Washburn Circuit Judge John P. Anderson to suppress the confession.

Stark's decision was joined by Appeals Judge Mark A. Seidl; Appeals Judge Thomas J. Hruz dissented.

"I conclude the conduct of the two officers imposed only minimal psychological pressures upon (defendant Adam W. Vice) and was within the boundaries of what due process tolerates for police questioning," Hruz wrote. "Certainly, overt coercion is absent.​...As for 'other improper police conduct,' I see nothing of the sort." 

Vice, then 25, was  first interviewed in December 2014 by Washburn County Sheriff's Investigator William Fisher after a four-year-old girl said Vice indecently touched her two months earlier.

Vice asked if there was anything he could do to clear his name and Fisher suggested taking a lie detector test.

Fisher drove Vice to Eau Claire, where the polygraph test was administered by Eau Claire Police Detective Ryan Lambeseder. Lambeseder read Vice his Miranda rights, including the warning that any statement he made could be used against him, and Vice consented in writing to the polygraph.  

The exam itself took about one hour and 45 minutes, Stark wrote. Afterward, Fisher and Lambeseder questioned Vice in an interview room. Vice was not handcuffed.

"Lambeseder asked Vice how he thought he did on the polygraph examination," Stark wrote. "Vice responded, 'I don’t know. I know for a fact that I’m telling the truth when I was telling the truth.'”

Lambeseder told Vice, who was in special education classes and high school and had minimal previous contact with police, that he had not passed the examination that it was “very clear” Vice was not telling the truth.

It's hard to be in prison at any time and harder still when the  small niceties – a phone call, a turn outdoors – are taken away during a pandemic battle.

The testimonials below have been edited for length, clarity and to protect the writers' identities.
***

I want to bring awareness to the new phone restrictions....This is for my floor and my floor only. Now, on A3 my current housing unit is being restricted to one 20-minute phone slot after 4 p.m. No other housing unit has to abide by this rule. The floor as a whole is being punished due to a few select inmates with no regard and no respect to others. There are more appropriate ways to handle this situation. Like consequences for the individuals that are abusing the phones.

We already lost our visitation with our families and friends with one substitute video visitation
or other forms of communication. Many of us housed here are Mothers and remaining a constant in our children's life is very important. I have two children ages 4 and 9. They are both in 2 different households. I can't call them until after 6 p.m. due to their fathers work schedule.

With this new rule? I am forced to pick and choose each night which one I can call and say goodnight to! That is absurd. I should be able to call both of my children to say goodnight just like anyone else in this institution. We have a memo posted from less than a month ago stating how they are looking into other ways of communication due to the visits being cancelled at this time. This proves to be the complete opposite of that!

***
I received a minor conduct report for disobeying orders, due to another inmate permitting me to share a phone call conversation with a mutual friend, and I was given a disposition of 40 days loss of phone. I was never given a verbal warning, a written warning, a reprimand or a previous minor conduct report for disobeying orders related to phone use.

Nearly five months ago, (the institution) created an unreasonable pre-COVID-19 pandemic policy, which was originally meant to allow everyone access to the phone by limiting phone use to five calls a day per inmate due to some inmates monopolizing the phone. The policy never addressed the reality of an inmate permitting another inmate to use his phone time, especially during this National State of Emergency. (The institution) never attempted to relax on this policy due to COVID-19, but instead chose to continue this unjust policy in limiting our access to our families, friends and loved ones.

2019 Act 97 –  This act makes battery to a nurse or to a person working under the supervision of a nurse a Class H felony rather than a misdemeanor, as was previously the case.

The misdemeanor was punishable by up to nine months in jail and a fine of up to $10,000. The felony is punishable by up to six years in prison and a fine of $10,000 or both.

It previously was a felony to commit battery against an emergency medical care provider. Act 97 expands that Class H felony to cover battery against any health care provider who works in a hospital.

"Hospital" has a broad definition under the act and includes any facility devoted to treatment of and medical care for three or more nonrelated individuals.

The law was introduced as Senate Bill 163. The companion bill was Assembly Bill 175.

The lead authors of SB 163 were Senators Dale Kooyenga (R-Brookfield) and Tim Carpenter (D-Milwaukee).

The lead co-sponsors were State Representatives Gae Magnafici (R-Dresser) and Cindi Duchow (R-Delafield).

An amendment to exempt some people with mental illness or brain damage, degenerative brain disorder, or developmental disability from the harsher penalties was defeated in the Assembly along a party line vote.

State Reps. Jonathan Brostrom (D-Milwaukee) and Rob Stafsholt (R-New Richmond) voted against the bill.

​Gov. Evers signed the new law Feb. 5, 2020.

Fiscal estimates:

District attorneys, Department of Corrections, Department of Justice and State Public Defender's Office all said they could not determine how much the new law would cost. 

Excerpts

Testimony for:

Kooyenga  – Workplace violence should not be a part of the job for a nurse. However, the reality we have all seen depicted in the news shows otherwise and unfortunately, earlier this year, a nurse was beaten to death at an area healthcare facility. Workplace violence against nurses can be found in just about every type of practice setting – hospitals, clinics, home care, psychiatric, long term care and correctional health settings. .​

By Gretchen Schuldt
​
This post was updated on May 20 to reflect additional positive coronavirus tests reported by the Department of Corrections.

The number of people incarcerated in state prisons testing positive for the coronavirus jumped 70% this week, from 20 last week to 34, according to Department of Corrections figures.

Meanwhile, the state's prison population still is declining during the coronavirus crisis, but at a much slower pace than it did earlier in the pandemic, DOC figures show.

The biggest virus outbreak is at the Felmers O. Chaney Correctional Center in Milwaukee, where 18 people have tested positive as of Wednesday, up from 13 on Monday. Five tested  positive as of Wednesday at the Marshall E. Sherrer Correctional Center, also in Milwaukee. That number is up one since Monday. Another 116 residents of those two facilities have tested negative.

The DOC last week tested all 125 or so of the people held at those facilities at the time. All of the testing has been completed and the results received. 

Two people incarcerated at Columbia Correctional Institution have tested positive, as have eight at Oshkosh Correctional Institution and one at Waupun Correctional Institution, according to the figures.

Some 1,047 people are in quarantine, meaning they were potentially or directly exposed to the virus, according to the DOC.

During the week that ended Friday, May 15, the number of occupied prison beds fell  by 128, just 52% of the 243-inmate decline recorded the week ending April 10, which saw the biggest drop recorded thus far during the pandemic. 

The number of occupied beds in the prison system has dropped from 23,273 on Feb. 28 to 22,008 on Friday, a decline of 1,265, or 5.4%. The prison system is still about 25% over capacity.

The number of filled inmate beds (as opposed to community corrections beds) at the Milwaukee Secure Detention Facility rose for the sixth week in a row, and stood at 463 as of Friday, up six from the week before and 59 from its lowest pandemic population of 404 on April 3.

The MSDF inmate population still is down 24%, or 144 people, from its pre-crisis level of 607 on March 6. 

The number of people held for alleged probation and parole (including extended supervision) also has dropped significantly, from 905 on Feb. 28 to 315 on Friday, a decline of 65%. 

The first chart below shows the decline in prison population for each week beginning Feb. 28. The other charts show state prison populations over time.

DOC stopped accepting most new inmates on March 23, shifting to countiesThe number of people incarcerated in state prisons testing positive for the coronavirus jumped 35% Monday, from 20 to 27, according to Department of Corrections figures.

Meanwhile, the state's prison population still is declining during the coronavirus crisis, but at a much slower pace than it did earlier in the pandemic, DOC figures show.

The biggest virus outbreak is at the Felmers O. Chaney Correctional Center in Milwaukee, where 13 people have tested positive.  Four have tested positive at the Marshall E. Sherrer Correctional Center, also in Milwaukee.

The DOC tested all 125 or so of the people held there last week. Most of those tests are pending, according to DOC figures. 

Two people incarcerated at Columbia Correctional Institution have tested positive, as have eight at Oshkosh Correctional Institution, according to the figures.

Some 956 people are in quarantine, meaning they were potentially or directly exposed to the virus, according to the DOC.

During the week that ended Friday, May 15, the number of occupied prison beds fell  by 128, just 52% of the 243-inmate decline recorded the week ending April 10, which saw the biggest drop recorded thus far during the pandemic. 

The number of occupied beds in the prison system has dropped from 23,273 on Feb. 28 to 22,008 on Friday, a decline of 1,265, or 5.4%. The prison system is still about 25% over capacity.

The number of filled inmate beds (as opposed to community corrections beds) at the Milwaukee Secure Detention Facility rose for the sixth week in a row, and stood at 463 as of Friday, up six from the week before and 59 from its lowest pandemic population of 404 on April 3.

The MSDF inmate population still is down 24%, or 144 people, from its pre-crisis level of 607 on March 6. 

The number of people held for alleged probation and parole (including extended supervision) also has dropped significantly, from 905 on Feb. 28 to  315 on Friday, a decline of 65%. 

DOC stopped accepting most new inmates on March 23, shifting to counties the responsibility of housing sentenced inmates. 

The first chart below shows the change in prison population for each week beginning Feb. 28. The other charts show state prison populations over time.