Rep. Brent Jacobson (R-Mosinee) said extended supervision, probation and parole are tools that give people a second chance with the expectation that they will not commit other crimes. Screenshot via WisEye.

The Wisconsin Assembly passed a slate of criminal justice related bills Thursday, including a requirement to revoke probation or parole for people charged with crimes and implementing financial penalties if Milwaukee Public Schools doesn’t return police officers to school buildings.  

Republican lawmakers said the bills were necessary to improve public safety in Wisconsin. 

“Wisconsinites in almost every part of our state have seen that there are areas of our state that have sincere and real concerns,” Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester) said during a press conference.

Assembly Minority Leader Greta Neubauer (D-Racine) said during floor debate that lawmakers should be crafting “smart” legislation to ensure people are safe across the state, but that the bills fall short of that goal. She said lawmakers should be focused on investing in safety.

“We can use evidence based, data driven practices to lower recidivism, to save taxpayer dollars and invest in rehabilitation and treatment to keep our communities safe,” Neubauer said. “Democrats are serious about safety, but the majority of bills in front of us today are not.”

Rep. Ryan Clancy said in a statement after the session that lawmakers spent the day on “considering badly written, badly conceived bills that will harm people and waste public resources” and said Republicans were refusing to acknowledge that mass incarceration and prison overcrowding are problems for the state. 

“It’s wildly irresponsible to even consider increasing penalties and interfering with the very few tools of leniency we have with a prison system holding 5,000 more people than intended,” Clancy said. “But here we are.”  

A couple of the bills would implement stricter requirements for dealing with criminal charges for people released from prison. 

AB 85 would require supervising corrections officials to recommend revoking extended supervision, parole or probation for formerly incarcerated people who are charged with a new crime after their release. It passed 53-43.

The Department of Corrections found in a fiscal estimate that the bill would result in approximately 6,280 additional revocation cases each year. It also found that there would be an increase in operations costs by $85 million in the first year of enactment and a permanent increased operations cost of about $245 million after the population is annualized in the second year.

Vos said that the bill should be simple. He said that people who are out on parole have been given the “privilege” of being released from prison. 

“Do you stand with the victim and the public or do you stand with the criminal who has reoffended and given up the privilege that he was briefly granted?” Vos rhetorically asked. “I think the price is worth it — $300 million to keep the people safe.” 

Jacobson said the bill is necessary to address the “revolving door” in the prison system and ensure criminals don’t have the opportunity to victimize people. He said that extended supervision, probation and parole are tools that give people a second chance with the expectation that they will not commit other crimes. 

“In far too many cases, a person released under state supervision continues the behavior that resulted in them going to prison in the first place,” Jacobson said. “It seems like common sense that someone who’s been convicted of a crime, is released under state supervision and returns to committing crimes, should have their release revoked. Far too often that is not the case.” 

Clancy said in his statement that Republicans were “openly misleading the public and their colleagues about the contents and impacts of those bills.” He noted that the bill would be “triggered when someone is merely charged with a crime” but not found guilty.

AB 66 would require prosecutors to get a court’s approval to dismiss certain criminal charges. It passed 53-44.

Rep. Alex Joers (D-Middleton) said the bill would “remove prosecutorial discretion” and impose limits on those trying to uphold the law. 

Jacobson, who authored the bill, argued it would support law enforcement and protect Wisconsinites from being victimized. He noted that Wisconsin law allows prosecutors to dismiss or amend charges or enter into deferred prosecution agreements. 

“In the Legislature, we can pass all the penalties we like. It won’t matter if the justice system won’t apply those penalties,” Jacobson said. The bill, he said, would add an additional layer of oversight and transparency by requiring prosecutors to get court approval to dismiss or amend charges in cases involving one of seven serious crimes. Those include sexual assault, crimes against a child, theft of an automobile, reckless driving resulting in great bodily harm and illegal possession of a firearm by a felon. 

“These crimes leave lasting impacts and it’s our job as officials to take these seriously,” Jacobson said. 

Lawmakers also passed a couple of bills that would increase penalties for certain crimes.

AB 61, which would increase penalties for injuring or killing an animal used by police or firefighters, passed in a voice vote. 

Specifically, the bill would increase injuring an animal to a Class H felony, which is punishable by a fine of up to $10,000 or imprisonment for up to six years. Killing an animal would be increased to a Class G felony, which is punishable by a fine of up to $25,000 or imprisonment for up to 10 years.

AB 86 passed in a voice vote. The bill would increase the penalty for child sex trafficking if the crime involved at least three victims who were children at the time the crime was committed from a Class C felony to a Class A felony. As a Class A felony, the crime could be punished with life imprisonment.

AB 89 would allow multiple acts of theft or retail theft committed by the same person to be prosecuted as a single crime, and the value of the thefts to be combined in determining the penalty. It passed 71-26, with 18 Democrats joining Republicans in support. 

School resource officers in MPS 

Lawmakers also passed AB 91, which would implement financial penalties for Milwaukee Public Schools (MPS) and the city of Milwaukee if either stop complying with a state law that requires police officers in schools.

Wisconsin Act 12, which passed in 2023, provided increased state funding for local governments and also implemented requirements that MPS place 25 officers in its schools by Jan. 1, 2024. The district was late to begin following the law, and a judge recently ordered the district and city to comply with the state law and instructed the district and the city to split the cost for the officers evenly. The Milwaukee Common Council and MPS Board both approved an agreement to make this happen earlier this month. 

The bill was introduced, its sponsors said, to ensure the district complies both now and in the future. 

An amendment to the bill changed the cost-sharing from 25% for the city of Milwaukee and 75% for the district to an even split between the two entities. 

If there is noncompliance, 10% of the city’s shared revenue payment will be withheld by the state and 25% of the school district’s state aid payments would be withheld. 

MPS has not had officers in schools since 2016, and the district ended its contract with the Milwaukee Police Department in 2020 in response to student and community opposition to the practice, a point that Rep. Darrin Madison (D-Milwaukee) pointed out during floor debate. 

Madison said that when he was a student at a school staffed with officers a friend of his had an encounter that left him in the hospital. 

“Two students were fighting. School safety officers came in and de-escalated the situation. As a friend of mine went to go check on his sister, who had been involved in the incident, I got to see school resource officers grab him, lift him in the air and body-slam him on the concrete of our lunchroom floor,” Madison said. “His shoulder was dislocated and his lip was busted, and he had to undergo surgery to navigate that situation. That wasn’t the only time that this happened in our school, where students were harmed by school resource officers.”

Madison said police officers in schools are a “failed approach.” 

“Thanks to Act 12, and thanks to this bill. We’ll continue to create harms for our students… Our schools shouldn’t look like prisons. They shouldn’t work like prisons, and we shouldn’t treat students like prisoners in a space of learning, creativity and exploration. This takes Milwaukee schools in a bad direction.”

Clancy pointed out that MPS is not the only school district without officers in schools. Some other districts are Madison Metropolitan School District, Sherwood, Nicolet, Glendale River Hills.

“This is an attack on Milwaukee, and this is an attack specifically on the Black, brown, and Indigenous young people,” Clancy said. 

Bill author Rep. Bob Donovan (R-Greenfield) said that the bill is needed because Milwaukee schools continue to call the police to deal with incidents. He cited a recent Milwaukee Journal Sentinel report that found MPS averaged 3,700 police calls each year over 11 years. 

“If MPS doesn’t want cops in their schools, why do they keep calling them?” Donovan said. 

“Some say that this legislation or the penalties are not necessary. What is the alternative? The state just allow open defiance of state law? It took an MPS parent to sue the district before any movement was made,” Donovan said. “This legislation ensures this never happens again… There must be consequences for breaking the law, and how can we expect MPS to teach our children respect for authority and the rule of law when they apparently have none themselves.” 

Other bills passed include

• AB 75 to require the state Department of Justice to collect and report a list of facts about each criminal case filed in Wisconsin. It passed 54-43. Rep. Russell Goodwin (D-Milwaukee) joined the Republicans in voting for the bill. 
• AB 87 to require a person convicted of child trafficking to pay restitution immediately, and would authorize the seizure of their assets in lieu of payment. It also would require that anyone convicted of a felony must pay all outstanding financial obligations from their conviction before their right to vote is restored. It passed 53-44.

• AB 74 to require public school boards, private school governing bodies and charter school operators to notify the parent or guardian of a student who is an alleged victim or target of a school employee’s sexual misconduct. It passed in a voice vote.
• AB 78 to allow municipalities to impound a reckless driver’s vehicle whether or not it belongs to the driver. It also requires police to determine if the vehicle has been reported stolen, and if it has been, to release it to the original owner at no cost. It passed in a voice vote.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Sen. Rob Hutton (R-Brookfield) testifies March 4 in favor of requiring a revocation recommendation when a formerly incarcerated person who is released on community supervision is charged with a new crime. Sitting with him is the bill's Assembly author, state Rep. Brent Jacobson (R-Mosinee). (Screenshot/WisEye)

An Assembly committee will vote Monday on a bill that could result in more people on correctional supervision — parole, probation, or extended supervision — facing revocation, resulting in a portion of their remaining sentence being served in incarceration. It is one of five bills to receive a committee vote. 

Revocation occurs when those on correctional supervision, as part of their sentencing, violate a condition of their release, such as consuming drugs or alcohol or re-offending.  In a hearing, an administrative judge determines if they have sufficiently violated their conditions to return to prison and serve some or all  of their remaining sentence.

Presently, parole or probation officers can decide whether  to recommend a revocation hearing, which can result in a temporary jail hold while an administrative judge considers the request.

The proposed legislation, AB 85, would mandate that those same probation and parole officers must recommend a revocation if the person on supervision is charged with a new offense.

Two Republican authors of the bill and law enforcement representatives spoke in favor of the bill at the March 4 Assembly Committee on the Judiciary public hearing. Proponents said  the legislation is needed to ensure at least a revocation hearing is held after a new offense is charged. They said leaving it up to the parole or probation officers’ discretion doesn’t automatically result in a revocation hearing.

Supporters of the bill also said it is necessary to hold repeat offenders accountable and ensure public safety.

Opposition to the bill comes from those advocating for prison and judicial reform, who argue that the present system already results in too many people being revoked for technical reasons. They argued  that current protocols are sufficient to protect the public. Instead of focusing on revocation, they said the state should support services that help those on supervision be more successful in reentering society. 

Hearing witnesses said that , in most cases, when a probation or parole officer recommends revocation, the administrative judge supports it.

In its 2025-2027 budget request, the Department of Corrections (DOC) set reducing revocations as one of its goals over the next three years. As part of the public hearing, the DOC submitted written testimony opposing the proposed legislation.

For AB 85

The committee’s vice chair and  the bill’s Assembly author, state Rep. Brent Jacobson (R-Mosinee), said the legislation is needed to ensure an administrative hearing is held to consider a revocation.

“It may come as a surprise, but a convicted criminal on community supervision is not immediately revoked if they’re charged with another crime,” said Jacobson.  “Under current statute, whether such individuals are reincarcerated or allowed to remain on our streets, is decided by an administrative law judge. However, in order for a judge to hear a revocation case, revocation must first be recommended by an agent of the Department of Corrections. According to the DOC’s own estimates, in 2019 there were 6,280 individuals on community supervision who were charged with a new crime but not revoked.”

Jacobson and others who spoke in favor of the bill all said they were for giving “second chances” to those who had violated the law, but they also noted a responsibility to protect the public from repeat offenders.

The bill’s Senate coauthor, Sen. Rob Hutton (R-Brookfield), said AB 85 is part of a package of bills that are “addressing the revolving door of crime and the cycle of lawlessness” that, he said, is allowed by the “lenient part of our judicial system.”

“Far too often, law-abiding citizens become victims of crimes committed by repeat offenders” who have been released on parole, probation or extended supervision, he said. 

“When a prisoner is granted release before the completion of their sentence, it becomes an expectation of good behavior, and that release is only as good as that person behaves,” Hutton said. “An individual who has been charged with a new crime while on release has violated their promise of good behavior and should have their release revoked. However, under current law, that is, frankly not the case.”

Joel Moeller, vice president of the Milwaukee Police Association, talked about working in a probation parole unit with a representative of the DOC looking for parole violators who had committed crimes after their incarceration.

“We were looking for serious guys that were in prison for serious things, and they committed serious crimes again,” Moeller said.  “A lot of times we would find them, arrested them. They’d sit in jail for four or five days, and then they would just be out with the hearing date where they were just committing more crimes.”

Moeller said it was critical to ensure those who were charged with another offense had an appearance before an administrative judge to determine whether probation should be revoked.

“Some of these people are model citizens when they come out [of incarceration], but a lot of them aren’t,” Moeller said. “They go back into the same lifestyle they were living when they went into prison, and sometimes they need to go back to learn a lesson.”

Alexander Ayala, president of the Milwaukee Police Association, said that while he served in the robbery unit, some of the robberies he investigated wouldn’t have happened and citizens wouldn’t have been “victimized” if the suspects had their parole revoked.

Committee Chair Ron Tusler (R-Harrison) noted that the argument could be made that passing the bill  would increase costs for the state. But he said consideration should be given to the “cost of recidivism” of parolees violating the law, such as the expense incurred by district attorneys prosecuting new complaints.

Against AB 85

Sean Wilson, the senior director of organizing and partnership at Dream.Org, a non-profit for “closing prisons doors and opening doors of opportunity,” spoke against AB 85.

“Rather than implementing measures that may increase revocations, we urge the legislature to introduce and pass legislation that supports the successful reintegration of individuals in supervision, investing in programs that provide education, job training, mental health, and substance abuse treatment, which can significantly reduce recidivism rates and promote public safety,” Wilson said.

He noted that many on supervision are required to make restitution to victims or must pay child or marriage support, but when supervision is revoked, that delays those payments. 

Wilson said In Wisconsin many have already been revoked for a “technical” violation of the condition of their release.

“Between January 2019 and May 2024, there were over 13,000 such admissions [revocations back to prison], accounting for approximately 34% of all prison admissions during that period,” said Wilson. “Implementing AB 85 could exacerbate this existing problem by increasing the number of individuals recommended for revocation based solely on criminal charges, regardless of conviction.”

Revocation before a person is tried for a new offense “undermines the presumption of innocence and will disproportionately affect marginalized communities, further exacerbating existing inequalities in our criminal justice system,” he added.  “While we acknowledge the intent to enhance public safety, it is crucial to consider the broader implications of AB 85. Enacting legislation that may increase revocations and contradicts the direction of effective criminal justice reform and does a disservice to the people of Wisconsin.”

Tusler asked Wilson  whether a revocation could intervene and stop criminal behavior.

“We send over 3,000 people back to prison each year as a result of technical revocations,” Wilson responded. “Often in those cases, there’s not a new crime; there’s an allegation of a crime, and individuals are sent back to prison as a result of that. I’ve traveled this state from North Wisconsin all the way down south, east and west, and I’ve heard stories of individuals going back to prison just for the sake of moving, just as a result of moving from apartment A to apartment B without getting proper approval from their probation agent”

Wilson claimed the annual fiscal impact of the technical revocations is $200 million.

He contended the DOC typically recommends revocation in most cases and it made no sense to have a mandatory recommendation.

Tessler said the bill didn’t address “technical” issues of revocation. He conjectured that even when there is a technical revocation, there were probably other issues that had exacerbated a parolee’s standing.

Two representatives of Ex-incarcerated People Organizing (EXPO) — Operations Director Marianne Oleson and Executive Director Jerome Dillard — also spoke against the bill.

Oleson advocated for the state to allocate more resources to help those on probation become successful. She discussed the typical struggles people face in obtaining housing and employment and advocated for “true wraparound services that support people in recognizing we are more than the choices we regret.”

AB 85 would “overtax an already over-taxed system,” said Oleson, and she encouraged more support for organizations like Dream and Expo.

Dillard said that after working 20 years in prisons and outside, most probation and parole officers are doing their jobs correctly, and the current process works.

He argued  that not every charge should result in a revocation, such as retail theft or a misdemeanor offense. Dillard said he knew of someone who was revoked for a misdemeanor, returning to prison for  24 months, but the judge in the misdemeanor case only sentenced the person to 90 days.

A new charge could also result in a revocation hearing even if the charge is later dismissed.

“I don’t see where this legislation is really needed in the systems that we have today, because community corrections do their job, and sometimes I feel [they are] overzealous because individuals are locked up on hearsay,” said Dillard.

The Wisconsin State Public Defenders office and Wisconsin’s American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) also registered in opposition to the bill.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE