Family members  of Corey Ruiz, who was shot and killed by a Madison police officer on the city’s east side Wednesday, said at an emotional press conference Friday afternoon they want charges filed against the officer who fired the shots and for Madison cops to be equipped with body cameras. 

Speaking from the Assembly parlor in the state Capitol building, Ruiz’s mother, two sisters, brother, daughter and daughter’s mother spoke of a man who loved to crack jokes, make music and work in construction. 

The family was joined by state Rep. Shelia Stubbs (D-Madison) and Ben Crump, a national civil rights attorney who has frequently represented the families of people of color killed by police. 

Orchestrating the press conference, Crump noted Madison’s policy against high speed chases for property crimes — Ruiz was first chased by police on his bike after officers responded to reports that someone in the area was looking into parked cars. Crump also raised questions about whether  the other officers on the scene believed deadly force was necessary and if Ruiz actually brandished the knife police have said he used against the officer who shot him. 

“We saw an execution, and it shocked our conscience,” Crump said. “People all over Wisconsin were shocked when they saw the execution of Corey Ruiz. People all over America are shocked when they see the execution of Corey Ruiz, because they understand when they see that video that it was so unnecessary to execute him. It was unnecessary, unjustifiable, and unconstitutional how they executed Corey Ruiz.”

Crump also said he wants officials to be transparent about the investigation, which is being conducted by the Wisconsin Department of Justice under a state law that requires officer-involved shooting investigations to be led by  an outside agency. Crump added that he believes the officer responsible should be charged with a crime. 

Marjorie Ann Aliomar, the mother of Ruiz’s 13-year-old daughter, Kah’liyah, said the tragedy was especially painful because the shooting took place at a busy intersection in their own neighborhood. 

“This place is two blocks up the street from our home, two blocks away from her school,” Aliomar said. “Every day she has to walk to school … she would have to walk past her dad’s memorial, where he was murdered by people we’re supposed to trust and depend on.”

While wiping away tears, Kah’liyah addressed the police. 

“How can I call you knowing you shot my father?” she said. “How are you going to have four policemen on one Black man? On top of that, how are you going to get scared of us if you’re supposed to save us?” 

Several times, Ruiz’s family said they wanted the city to equip Madison cops with body cameras. 

For years, city and police officials have requested body cameras for all Madison police and a body camera pilot program is currently underway on the city’s north side. 

Last fall, the common council voted against allocating money in the budget for a citywide body camera program, instead sending that money to the city’s Office of the Independent Monitor — the civilian oversight body that tracks the police department. 

Ripple effects 

Protests over the killing of Ruiz continue to make waves across the city. 

Two days after the shooting, activists still control the intersection of Baldwin and Williamson Streets where the shooting occurred, with makeshift barricades of garbage bins, mattresses and scrap metal blocking off the streets in every direction. 

Organizers of Atwood Fest, a popular annual street festival that takes place a few blocks east of the shooting’s location, was canceled. 

“Our community and our Marquette neighbors witnessed another horrific officer-involved shooting just blocks from our festival grounds, leaving us in deep pain and justified anger,” organizers wrote on the festival website. “AtwoodFest’s core values have always centered on building community, using each festival’s proceeds to support the groups doing important work right here in our neighborhood. Now it is vital to support our neighbors, particularly those who have borne the brunt of this pain and injustice, by taking time to mourn and reflect on our role in these broken systems, so we can create a community that truly lives up to our values.”

The U.S. government filed a lawsuit against the city of Milwaukee Thursday, arguing the city has no authority to enforce its ordinance preventing law enforcement from wearing masks while interacting with the public. 

The lawsuit, filed against the city as well as its mayor, city attorney and police chief, argues that cities and states are unable to regulate federal government action. 

“For centuries, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed that States have no authority whatsoever to regulate the Federal Government,” the lawsuit states. “Despite that well-established principle, Milwaukee recently enacted an ordinance that purports to do exactly what constitutional law says it cannot: regulate how federal law enforcement officers carry out their official duties in that City.”

Initially enacted in April, the Milwaukee ordinance prohibits law enforcement officers performing their duties from covering their faces and requires that their names and the agency they work for be easily identifiable on their uniform. 

“The use of facial coverings and disguises by law enforcement officers significantly affects the public’s perception of law enforcement, officer-community interactions, and accountability,” the ordinance states. “Persons reasonably may experience fear or intimidation when approached by officers whose faces are obscured. Such reactions can heighten defensive behavior and unnecessarily escalate the tension inherent in many interactions between law enforcement officers and members of the public.”

Last week, City Attorney Evan Goyke wrote in a letter to U.S. prosecutors  that federal officers wouldn’t be exempted from the ordinance, prompting the lawsuit. 

“the City and the public have a right to know if masked, armed, and unidentified men seizing people on our streets are who they say they are,” Goyke wrote, objecting to the federal government’s insistence that immigration officers be allowed to conceal their identities “at their discretion.”

“Unfortunately, in the case of federal immigration officers, in particular, that unbounded discretion, coupled with guns and a lack of accountability, has had tragic consequences in cities across the country,” he wrote. Goyke disputed the federal government’s claim that the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution makes ordinances such as Milwaukee’s illegal, citing previous and ongoing litigation on the matter.

Federal immigration officers across the country have worn masks while carrying out  President Donald Trump’s crackdown on immigrants. Federal officials have argued the masks prevent officers from being doxxed. 

“State and local leaders cannot tell Federal officers how to do their job,” Associate Attorney General Stanley E. Woodward, Jr. said in a news release. “And they certainly cannot prohibit them from ensuring their own safety in safeguarding our communities and enforcing federal law. We will never tolerate the doxxing or harassment of federal officers, or any law like Milwaukee’s that enables violent behavior against law enforcement officers and their families.”

The lawsuit argues that federal officers should be able to make decisions about covering their faces on a case-by-case basis. 

“Denying federal agencies and officers discretion in these areas would chill federal law enforcement, threatening the safety of communities in Milwaukee,” the lawsuit states.

Brad Schimel, the former conservative Supreme Court candidate who is now an assistant U.S. attorney, said that the ordinance pits federal and local cops against each other. 

“Not only is this ordinance an affront to the Constitution, but it jeopardizes the safety of our courageous sworn law enforcement officers,” Schimel said. “Further, it puts local and federal law enforcement officers at odds with each other when they should be working together on the common goals to enforce the rule of law and keep our communities safe.”

Madison city officials attempted to hold a press conference Thursday after a police officer shot and killed a man, identified as Corey Ruiz, at a busy intersection on Williamson and Baldwin streets Wednesday. The briefing was derailed by a group of protesters who arrived and took over the podium, sparking a verbal altercation with Madison residents who also wanted to express their discontent and question Mayor Satya Rhodes-Conway, Police Chief John Patterson, and Common Council President Sabrina Madison. 

“My immediate concern, right now, is for the well-being of our community,” Rhodes-Conway said at the beginning of the press conference, speaking to reporters while local residents began taking seats in the small room. “I want to make sure that everyone who needs it has access to resources and mental health support. Those resources exist, and are available if you need them.” 

Rhodes-Conway urged residents to use the 9-8-8 hotline for urgent mental health support, or to text either “home” or “hola” to 741-741 to reach volunteer crisis counselors, or to contact the Dane County crisis hotline at 608-280-2609. 

The shooting triggered  outrage, anger and  grief among residents, especially those who witnessed it directly. 

Video taken by bystanders shows several officers wrestling Ruiz to the ground. While he is on the ground, one of the officers appears to fire several shots into Ruiz’s head at close range. The Madison Police Department does not have a universal body camera program, and Chief Patterson has pushed local elected officials to implement a body camera program in the 2027 budget. During the press conference Thursday, Patterson said a criminal homicide investigation has been opened in the shooting.

The shooting is being investigated by the Wisconsin Department of Justice Division of Criminal Investigation. Patterson said Wednesday that the officer who fired was injured by a fixed-blade knife Ruiz brandished. Patterson also said that officers had confronted Ruiz after responding to a call from someone in the neighborhood who said he was checking cars, but that Ruiz fled before they chased him to  the intersection. 

State law requires that officer-involved shootings be investigated by an outside agency in order to maintain objectivity and public trust. The investigations can take months, after which the case is handed over to a local district attorney who then determines whether an officer will be charged for the shooting. Madison residents, impatient for more information and still angry about the 2015 police shooting of Tony Robinson in the same neighborhood, are demanding a response from city officials.

“This is an incredibly difficult moment for the Madison community,” Rhodes-Conway said. “And I understand the very difficult emotions that people are feeling. I am feeling them too. As a city, as a community, as a society, we have to do better.” She added  that “it does not matter who you are, or what your past is, you should not lose your life as a result of an encounter with law enforcement. That should not happen.” 

“Like many in our community today, I have a lot of questions and concerns about what happened yesterday,” Rhodes Conway said, “what decisions were made by officers that led to escalation instead of de-escalation; what different choices could have been made to prevent harm; what needs to change — police policy, or training, or anything else — to prevent more deaths.”

Madison, the city council president, said Ruiz could have been any number of people, including people she knows and loves. She added that she has family members who have struggled with mental illness, homelessness, and that Black and brown children are taught by their parents how to interact with police in order to survive the encounter, something Madison said her white friends with children have no need to discuss with their own sons. Madison said that Ruiz “is a person, he’s a human being, he has a family, he has parents who loved him, you know, who brought him home, who cared for him, who poured into him.”

Watching the videos Madison said she could hear the sounds, she could hear officers yelling “taser,” and she can also hear the shots fired. Madison said she asked herself, “When the officer’s walking away, why isn’t he walking away in cuffs?” She said her thoughts are with Ruiz’s family because “his death is final, there is no coming back from death.” 

Madison, the mayor, and the police chief all called for a full, fair and transparent investigation. Madison also said that “we should be pushing and advocating for our district attorney to charge folks” and that people should engage with the district attorney, the Division of Criminal Investigation, the city’s independent police monitor, and the Police and Fire Commission. Madison encouraged residents to file complaints with those organizations, as well as the police department. “I think you should take every route for justice for Corey; I don’t think you should limit yourself.” 

Patterson said that he didn’t want to “rush past” the fact that Ruiz’s family and the community are grieving. He said that the Madison Police Department requested a full, independent criminal investigation. Patterson said that the Division of Criminal Investigation will release the name of the officer on its own timeline, and that the Madison Police Department has limited information about and involvement in the investigation. Recalling the words of retired former Madison Police Chief David Couper, Patterson said that police “cannot do the job unless you have the support of the community.” He added that Couper once wrote that “use of physical force by police is a sacred public trust…The more force a department uses, the less trust and support it has from the people it serves. The more force we use, the less trust we have.”

As Patterson spoke about the need to recognize  the trauma the community has experienced from  past shootings, Carlos LeMar Dixon of Milwaukee entered the room with a small entourage. Dixon yelled, “We can shut this down, you can stop talking!” 

“You’re going to say the same thing you all say every time a Black body gets shot down in this city,” Dixon yelled, adding, “Have no fear, the anti-Zionist is here!” 

Dixon continued yelling over the chief while walking to the podium, about imperialism and Zionism, asserting that he would not allow any public officials to speak or answer questions. Dixon also scolded reporters in the room to hear the briefing from public officials for not asking him questions instead. 

Some of Dixon’s supporters also yelled, helping him drown out the mayor, chief and common council president. Meanwhile some Madison residents in the room argued with Dixon, sparking a tense verbal confrontation as Dixon and members of his group hurled insults and threats at various people. Some of the Madison residents, while critical of the public officials at the briefing, demanded that Dixon either calm down or leave so that relevant questions could be asked. 

At one point after the chaotic exchange, Mayor Rhodes-Conway left and Patterson held the podium to answer questions. 

Patterson answered a question from the Examiner about whether officers are trained under Defense and Arrest Tactics to use the least amount of force necessary to overcome a threat, and whether officers who use deadly force must evaluate whether the threat is still present after each shot is fired. “There is a standard of a threat of great bodily harm or death that must be articulated to one’s self or someone else,” Patterson began. “And so that is a standard that [Division of Criminal Investigation] will be evaluating when they start, that is a standard that we use when we use our use of force review.” 

Under Defense and Arrest Tactics, there are several levels of force available to police officers including their mere presence, which can discourage criminal activity, less lethal force such as  tasers and deadly force. The standard for use of force is evaluated through the perspective of a hypothetical “reasonable officer” faced with the same situation, and questions whether such an officer would have used deadly force. Prior to shooting Ruiz, one of the four officers involved deployed a taser, which Patterson said was ineffective. 

The Examiner asked Patterson how the reasonable officer standard would apply when four officers are involved in a situation and only one officer chooses to use deadly force. Patterson declined to respond to that question citing the ongoing investigation. Patterson also said that the officer who fired was not a supervisor — such as a sergeant or lieutenant — but that he was a veteran officer with 11 years experience. He added that he did not have information about whether the officer who fired had a history of discipline or citizen complaints, but he did say that he’d never been involved in a deadly force incident before. 

Evening vigil 

More than 24 hours after the shooting, protesters still controlled the intersection where Ruiz was killed. Initial barricades of garbage bins and mattresses were reinforced by police blockades and Madison city snow plows.

Activists and community members held a vigil Thursday evening in the intersection with hundreds of people somberly listening as pained members of Madison’s Black community spoke, with chants of Ruiz’s name interspersed like the response in a prayer.

Juliana Bennett, a former Madison alder who is now running in the Democratic primary for the 76th Assembly District — which includes Willy Street — noted in a speech to the crowd that the killing of Ruiz took place six years after the police protests of 2020, which themselves took place six years after Madison police killed Tony Robinson, a few blocks west of the spot where the vigil was held, in 2015.

Bennett said that police killings are policy decisions and noted that in a liberal community such as Madison, police violence and racism are often met with “committee after committee, meeting after meeting,” and implored community members to continue pressing local officials for change. 

Melissa and Mark Hortman were killed in less than 30 seconds on June 14, 2025, in a shocking act of political violence. 

But their quick deaths are of no comfort to their son, Colin Hortman, who on Thursday told a federal judge that he falls asleep every night picturing a waterfall of blood flowing down the stairs of his childhood home in Brooklyn Park. It’s the same image he awakens to. 

And his parents’ quick demise is of no comfort, he said, because the last thing his mother saw before she was killed was her husband and beloved dog shot multiple times.

Now, he has trouble recalling his parents without remembering the bullet holes in their bodies. 

The horror of the assassination and the impact of the attacks on Minnesota’s political system were detailed by the Hortman children, Colin and Sophie, as well as 12 other victims at the Minneapolis federal courthouse, who shared how their lives were shattered by the man sitting next to them in an orange jumpsuit: Vance Boelter. 

Boelter last month pleaded guilty to the murders of Melissa Hortman — the former Democratic House speaker and one of Minnesota’s most consequential legislative leaders — and her husband, Mark, as well as the shooting of state Democratic Sen. John Hoffman and his wife.

Thursday’s hearing signifies the final chapter in a year-long saga that has scarred the state and injected a new level of fear into politics. 

U.S. District Judge John Tunheim sentenced Boelter to two consecutive life sentences as well as an additional 40 years. There is no parole in the federal judicial system, so it’s extremely likely Boelter will spend the rest of his life behind bars. 

Tunheim said it’s the longest sentence he’s ever imposed on a person in the thousands of cases he’s heard over his career. 

“I believe it’s well-deserved,” Tunheim told Boelter.

Boelter read a short statement apologizing to the victims aloud in court: “To every person I have caused loss, pain, heartache, confusion, sadness or loneliness, I am truly sorry.”

Boelter previously pleaded guilty to all the government’s charges: two counts of stalking Melissa Hortman and John Hoffman; two counts of murder in the killings of the Hortmans; and two firearms offenses in the shootings of the Hortmans and the Hoffmans, and the attempted shooting of Hope Hoffman, who managed to call 911 amid the bloody attack.

He admitted in court that he planned the murders months in advance, recording the addresses of his victims and buying a highly realistic silicone mask to impersonate a police officer.

In the early hours of June 14, Boelter drove to the Hoffman home and shot John and Yvette Hoffman through the front door. He then drove to Rep. Kristin Bahner’s home in Maple Grove, but she was on vacation. Then he drove to Sen. Ann Rest’s home, where he was seen by a real police officer who assumed he was a cop conducting a welfare check. 

Next, he drove to the Hortmans’ in Brooklyn Park and parked his Ford Explorer with fake police lights turned on in their driveway. He rang the doorbell and said he was conducting a welfare check. He told Mark Hortman he needed to see Melissa, and then shot him. He shot Melissa multiple times as she tried to flee up the stairs. Boelter then shot her in the head. 

U.S. Attorney for Minnesota Daniel Rosen wrote in the government’s sentencing memo that Boelter “expressed great disdain” for the Democratic Party.

“And he knew that the Minnesota Legislature was so closely divided that by killing four state legislators, the inevitable result would be a shift in the balance of power in both legislative houses,” Rosen wrote. “The astonishing damage that Boelter caused to his victims and to the State of Minnesota will never be cured. Justice requires that Boelter never be free ever again.”

Bahner was the first to read aloud her victim statement. She told Boelter she would have opened the door if she were home that day because she trusts law enforcement. She told Boelter that he failed his mission because she was still alive, and he has strengthened her resolve to continue advocating for her constituents.

John Hoffman, Yvette Hoffman and Hope Hoffman also addressed Boelter. Hope Hoffman criticized the media, who in the aftermath of the shootings, incorrectly reported that Yvette Hoffman jumped on top of her to save her from Boelter’s bullets. 

John Hoffman read to Boelter several passages from the Bible, including Matthew 7:16: “By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?”

These, Hoffman said, are “words of the faith the defendant claimed to represent.” 

He added: “(Boelter’s) actions spoke louder than any sermon he has ever preached.”

Many wiped away tears in the packed courtroom as legislators and family members told Boelter how his decision to kill their loved ones not only ruined their lives, but also irrevocably changed Minnesota.  

J. Carroll Hortman, Mark Hortman’s father, said that his daughter-in-law Melissa was witty and brilliant. She had a bright future, and she had yet to experience the joy of becoming a grandparent. 

“I believe she could have become the next governor of this state,” he said. 

Mark Hortman’s family, including his brother and his sister, told the judge they were upset that Boelter’s guilty plea deprived them of a trial and of the opportunity to see Boelter receive the death penalty. They hated the idea that Boelter would live a comfortable life in prison.

Carroll Hortman said he blamed Acting U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche, who he said did the country a disservice by agreeing to a plea deal. He also questioned why Brooklyn Park police on June 14 watched from afar as Boelter killed his son and went into the home and shot his daughter-in-law.

The Hortmans’ daughter Sophie Hortman said she had been working on her statement for the whole year since she lost her parents.

“I miss my mom. I miss my dad. I miss my best friends, and I miss believing in the goodness of humanity. The pain will never go away,” she said. 

She also detailed the agonizing decision to put down the family dog, Gilbert, who Boelter shot multiple times before killing Melissa Hortman.

On the morning of June 14, Sophie and Colin received conflicting information about whether Gilbert was alive and went to the veterinarian.

A vet wheeled Gilbert into the room on a metal tray. Colin started screaming when he saw Gilbert. He had been shot multiple times, including in the head. Despite his condition, Gilbert still flickered his tail when he saw the Hortman children, and he gave them kisses with his big tongue.

The Hortman children asked the vet if he would let his own dog live in Gilbert’s condition. The vet said no. 

“Colin and I agreed: Gilbert would want to be with his parents,” Sophie said. “I told him he would see mommy and daddy soon.”

A federal immigration judge heard arguments Wednesday from attorneys in a deportation hearing for Salah Sarsour, the president of Milwaukee’s Islamic Society. Earlier this year, Sarsour was arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents and then detained in an Indiana facility for months. Sarsour was released in June following a federal judge’s ruling that his arrest constituted First Amendment retaliation due to his advocacy for Palestinians and his criticism of the Israeli government. 

The Wednesday hearing, which ran all day before being adjourned until next week, was to determine whether Sarsour’s deportation order can be upheld. Sarsour has lived in the U.S. with no criminal record for decades, and is considered a local community leader. Sarsour became a lawful permanent resident in 1998 when his application was approved under Republican president George W. Bush in 2002. 

After his arrest, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) accused Sarsour of lying on his 1993 green card application, asserting that Sarsour was convicted in Israeli military courts of throwing Molotov cocktails at the homes of Israeli soldiers. The department also cites other accusations by Israeli authorities that Sarsour “illegally attempted to possess” weapons and ammunition. Sarsour’s family members have said that he would tell stories of being tortured to confess while in Israeli detention. Prosecutors repeatedly referenced detentions and accusations from Israeli authorities against Sarsour during 1988 and 1995.

Those accusations, and the context of what living under Israeli military occupation means for Palestinians in the West Bank, were examined in court Wednesday. Defense attorneys first called Sarsour’s older brother Mohammad, a U.S. citizen who is married and lives in Oak Creek. Mohammad testified that he helped his brother retain a well-known lawyer in the West Bank when Sarsour was arrested. He denied ever seeing Sarsour ever provide support to terrorists of any kind, and recalled that Sarsour went through three or four Israeli military court hearings.

“Every time I saw him, I noticed weight loss and also discoloration in his eyes, redness, yellowish,” said Mohammad Sarsour, speaking through an Arabic translator, although he also understood English. “And had a discolored, faded face color. He looked like he was unable to take showers so his hair was sticking on his head.” There were other signs that his brother was not being provided proper hygiene access, and that he “complained to the court of pain in his knee and back.” Mohammad said that the Israeli authorities would not allow them to talk to Sarsour, but that at one point a member of the Israeli secret service told Mohammad and Sarsour’s wife to persuade him to plead guilty. 

Prosecutors raised questions about Mohammad’s ability to remember those events from decades ago. Mohammad couldn’t remember the exact dates of the hearings. Prosecutors questioned why an Israeli military official would tell them to get Sarsour to plead guilty if they generally weren’t allowed to talk to him. “They [Israeli authorities] can do whatever they want,” he said on the stand. Mohammad was also asked by prosecutors whether he loved his brother and didn’t want to see him be deported, which Mohammad affirmed.

Defense attorneys also called Alan Hirsch, an expert in false confessions and chair of the Justice & Law Studies Program at Williams College. Prosecutors spent an extended period of  time trying to convince the judge, unsuccessfully, that Hirsch was not qualified to testify as an expert in false interrogations, particularly as his direct knowledge of Israeli interrogation practices would be limited. Hirsch testified that Israeli authorities, based on his own studies, were “using aggressive interrogation tactics” during the time when Sarsour was detained. He said that there’s no evidence that Sarsour’s confession either generated new evidence or corroborated existing evidence, and that when Sarsour was initially detained in 1988 he was a juvenile, one of the groups most vulnerable to giving false confessions. 

Another defense witness had a much more extensive knowledge of Israeli treatment of Palestinians. Sari Bashi, an Israeli lawyer and human rights investigator, testified remotely, from Israel, where it was late at night when she was called to give her testimony. Bashi has an extensive knowledge of what Palestinian prisoners go through in Israeli detention and military courts. She pointed out that Sarsour’s 1988 arrest occurred shortly after the First Intifada, a sustained period of uprising and protest by Palestinians in the occupied West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Prosecutors attempted to undermine her credibility as an expert, casting her as overly sympathetic to Palestinians, and saying she was too young to have known first-hand what Israeli practices in 1988 were. 

Bashi said that Israel holds the West Bank under “belligerent occupation,” where the local military commander serves as the executive, lawmaker, judge and executor of law. Military orders dictate what is considered a crime in the West Bank, and Palestinians can be detained without charge for long periods of time. Sometimes evidence against the accused is considered secret, and proceedings and documentation are in Hebrew, which few Palestinians speak and even fewer can read. “The system lacks very basic due process standards,” said Bashi. “So arrests are the norm, even for children.” Conviction rates in Israeli military courts against Palestinian civilians are over 90 percent. 

Under this regime, Palestinian people often receive very vague charges for organizing community activities, public disorder, association, or writing a liberation slogan on a wall, Bashi testified. “There can be almost no limit to what that association can look like,” she said. This was especially true during the First Intifada, a period during which Bashi said that hundreds of thousands of people were detained by Israeli authorities.

Bashi said that Israeli forces used euphemisms such as “moderate physical pressure,” “threats,” and “severe psychological pressure” to describe tactics which she and other international experts would simply call “torture.” During testimony she listed a variety of interrogation tactics including violent shaking; prolonged stress positions, beatings, sexual violence such as forced nudity, hitting of genitals, or rape threats, temperature torture, exposure to foul smells and human bodily fluids, being forced to hear the screaming of other tortured detaines, sleep deprivation, the targeted arrest and threating of loved ones and choking. 

“People will do whatever they think will get them out, released, as quickly as possible,” said Bashi. “They just want to make that stop.” Reviewing the Israeli records provided for the hearing, Bashi said that she can only see pending charges for membership in unlawful associations and helping wanted people as of 1995 for Sarsour. Based on the records she reviewed, it wasn’t clear to Bashi whether Sarsour had ever been convicted of weapons charges. She also pointed out that he was kept in detention for a matter of months, which is “pretty short” compared with  a typical Israeli detention experience. “It would seem inconsistent with somebody who they truly believed was providing assistance” to terrorists, Bashi said. 

Prosecutors asked Bashi whether she was aware of accusations as described in Sarsour’s immigration records. She said she was not. Bashi only reviewed Israeli records. Prosecutors also targeted Bashi’s statements that high conviction rates may indicate some sort of problem like torture, citing high conviction rates in America. Bashi said that whenever there are exceedingly high conviction rates, it’s worth asking why that is. She said that while she doesn’t know Sarsour, everything he described in terms of being tortured by Israeli forces to produce a confession is  “extremely common” among Palestinians. 

Correction: A previous version of this story mistakenly described Sarsour’s application for permanent residency as a “naturalization” application, which would have been an application for citizenship, not permanent residency. We regret the error.

In the center of a busy intersection on Williamson and Baldwin Streets in Madison, Wisconsin, several officers from the Madison Police Department wrestled a man to the ground in the early afternoon Wednesday, used a taser on him and then shot him at close range. Unable to cross the intersection, several vehicles stopped and their drivers got out to film the arrest. In videos posted online, residents can be heard screaming in shock and anger. Hundreds of protesters converged on the scene Wednesday evening and marched downtown, interrupting the Concert on the Square. Protest speakers identified the man as Corey Ruiz and a crowd of hundreds of people chanted his name. 

Madison Police Chief John Patterson held a press conference Wednesday, urging residents to keep the Willy Street neighborhood in mind and the “historical trauma” that arises when officer-involved shootings occur. Patterson said that officers responded to a call concerning a person apparently checking parked vehicles. When officers encountered the man he fled on a bicycle, riding through backyards until he lost the officers. They caught up with him again, at which point the man “either fell off or was taken off the bicycle by officers,” Patterson said. 

During the struggle, Patterson said the man produced a “fixed blade knife,” injuring one of the officers who then fired his weapon multiple times. Patterson described the officer as a “veteran” who was the only officer to fire out of the four who were involved in the struggle. Video also shows one of the officers seemingly stomping the man while he was on the ground as the first shot was fired.

The Wisconsin Department of Justice (DOJ) Division of Criminal Investigation (DCI) is leading the investigation into the shooting. Wisconsin law dictates that officer-involved shootings must be investigated by an outside, uninvolved agency to maintain objectivity. After the investigation is over, which may take weeks or months, a local district attorney reviews the findings and decides whether or not to charge an officer for the shooting. Such charges are exceedingly rare in Wisconsin.

Due to the ongoing investigation Patterson declined to  answer questions about the details of the shooting  Wednesday. Madison police officers do not have body cameras, and Patterson has pushed for body cameras to be included in the 2027 city budget. Patterson said that the man’s family had been notified before he spoke with the media, and he expressed  his sympathies to them. 

Democratic primary candidates in the governor’s race issued statements about the shooting. Rep. Francesca Hong (D-Madison) said that the police had “killed a Black man just a few blocks from our campaign office and just a few blocks from where Madison police murdered Tony Robinson in 2015.” Hong said that she is “horrified and devastated” and that her heart “goes out to his loved ones and everyone who witnessed this tragic event.” Hong said that all police footage of the shooting needs to be preserved and released, and that questions need to be asked of the police department as to why its officers could not de-escalate the situation. 

Milwaukee County Executive and Democratic gubernatorial candidate David Crowley said, “I am horrified by the reports coming out of Madison about a man who was shot and killed in the street by police officers. While details are still emerging and a full accounting of what happened is still needed, these reports are painfully reminiscent of the tragedies in Kenosha, Minneapolis, and far too many communities across our country. Each incident reopens deep wounds, raises difficult questions, and reminds us of the urgent work that remains to build trust, transparency, and accountability in our systems.” Crowley said his “heart is with the individual’s loved ones, who are now facing an unimaginable loss, and with the entire Madison community as it grapples with this tragedy.”

Joel Brennan, another Democratic primary candidate, said that Madison “deserves a full, transparent, and independent accounting of what happened.” Brennan added that “no family should have to wait for answers, no community should have to wonder whether the truth will come out. The Wisconsin DOJ investigation must be allowed to do its work completely and without interference.”

State Sen. Kelda Roys, another candidate in the primary, said, “Let this city wrap its arms around Corey’s family and loved ones, and demand justice for him and them and all of us. There must be a full, independent investigation and the responsible officers held fully accountable under the law, as required by Wisconsin statute. The Department of Justice should serve as the lead investigator to ensure fairness and impartiality. We do not have to accept this as normal or inevitable. It is NOT. No other country in the world tolerates this level of police violence. We can and must create a more just, safe world for all of us.”

Melissa Agard, Dane County Executive, said, “our community is once again confronting the profound consequences that follow when a life is lost in an encounter with law enforcement.” Agard said, “this is not just another headline, this is someone’s child. A family is grieving an unimaginable loss, and our hearts are with them, with everyone affected by this tragedy, and with the bystanders and emergency personnel who responded to an incredibly difficult situation.” Agard said that every police shooting “shakes the public trust and leaves our community searching for answers.” She added, “we cannot become numb to these tragedies or accept them as inevitable.”

Ruth Conniff contributed to this report.

Updated on Thursday, July 23 at 8:04 a.m.

In a strongly worded letter to federal prosecutors, Milwaukee City Attorney Evan Goyke rejected the U.S. Department of Justice demand that he provide assurances by Friday that neither he, the Milwaukee Police Department nor any other city entity would enforce an ordinance prohibiting law enforcement officers from wearing masks and concealing their identities.

“The only assurances I can offer you,” Goyke wrote in his July 17 letter to Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate and First Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Wisconsin Brad Schimel, “are that [the ordinance] is a vital public safety measure, that I will not advise my clients to exempt federal law enforcement officers from enforcement of the Ordinance against them, and that my office will prosecute any validly issued citation for acts in violation of the Ordinance.”

Masked and unidentified law enforcement officers endanger public safety, Goyke wrote, by undermining accountability and police-community relations, stoking confusion, fear and intimidation and heightening the risk that “bad actors will harm others by impersonating officers” and also that “individuals might resist legitimate law enforcement actions where they otherwise would not due to the fear that they are facing an imposter.”

“You express great concern for the safety of federal law enforcement officers throughout your letter,” he added, “but not once do you express any similar concern for the safety of the public.” 

The ordinance, Goyke wrote, does not restrict the federal officers’ ability to perform their lawful duties while protecting the safety and welfare of residents and visitors of Milwaukee.

“the City and the public have a right to know if masked, armed, and unidentified men seizing people on our streets are who they say they are,” he wrote, objecting to the federal government’s insistence that immigration officers be allowed to conceal their identities “at their discretion.”

“Unfortunately, in the case of federal immigration officers, in particular, that unbounded discretion, coupled with guns and a lack of accountability, has had tragic consequences in cities across the country, most recently in Houston, Texas and Biddeford, Maine,” Goyke wrote, referring to recent fatal shootings by immigration officers in those cities. He also described “unnecessarily aggressive tactics” used by ICE officers in Milwaukee, including “boxing in cars, pointing guns and Tasers at people, breaking car windows, and pinning people on the ground.

“Many drove in unmarked vehicles and wore face coverings,” he added.

Goyke disputed the federal government’s claim that the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution makes ordinances such as Milwaukee’s illegal, citing a 1988 circuit court ruling that held “the Supremacy Clause was not intended to be a shield for ‘anything goes’ conduct by federal law enforcement officers,” as well as the 1920 federal court ruling that held “An employee of the United States does not secure a general immunity from state law while acting in the course of his employment.”

He acknowledged that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently issued an injunction pending appeal of California’s law enforcement identification requirement, but said he does not agree with that ruling, adding that no federal court has issued a final ruling on the matter.

The letter closes by stating “this office approved the Ordinance as legal and enforceable. Neither the preliminary court rulings in other jurisdictions nor your letter convince us to change that opinion.”

Amidst a heat wave in Madison, people who were once incarcerated in Wisconsin’s prison system and supporters gathered Wednesday morning to protest outside the Wisconsin Department of Corrections central office. 

Speakers supported a lower prison population, better living conditions for incarcerated people and independent oversight of the prison system, which has been the target of criticism for a rash of deaths in custody as well as conditions of confinement in aging, understaffed facilities.

“There’s a severe overcrowding crisis in Wisconsin’s prison system right now,” said Mark Rice, transformational justice campaign coordinator for the nonprofit advocacy group WISDOM. Rice said the crisis is creating dangerously unstable conditions for people who work in the prisons as well as incarcerated people. 

In October, the State of Wisconsin Building Commission voted to release $15 million to prepare preliminary plans and a design report for a prison system revamp, a first step toward large-scale structural change to the system of prison facilities.

Rice urged people to get out and vote, and said voters should talk with candidates and elected officials about the state of Wisconsin’s corrections system. He referenced WISDOM’s gubernatorial candidate forum last month. 

“I want to see candidates have the courage to step up and talk about these issues, too,” Rice said. 

The Wisconsin Department of Corrections provided a detailed statement in response to a request for comment from the Examiner, replying to the criticisms of Wisconsin’s corrections system from activists. 

The department first directed the Examiner to the last four state budgets proposed by Gov. Tony Evers, “much of which were rejected by the Republican-controlled Legislature,” communications director Beth Hardtke said. 

“Beyond that, you will need to ask lawmakers what their plans are to address Wisconsin’s corrections challenges and move our correctional system into the 21st Century,” she said.

Different portrayals of solitary confinement

Activists at the protest and the DOC differed in their descriptions of what it’s like to experience solitary confinement in the Wisconsin prison system. 

Rice told the Examiner that stories shared about solitary confinement and “other inhumane conditions of confinement” during his group’s virtual meetings had inspired the protest. At an event covered by the Examiner last year, people who experienced solitary confinement described it as traumatizing, and questioned its effectiveness as a way to change behavior as well as arguing that incarcerated people are sometimes put in solitary for things they shouldn’t be punished for. 

Talib Akbar of the WISDOM affiliate MOSES showed the Examiner a portable replica of a solitary confinement cell inside a truck, which was parked in the Department of Corrections parking lot during the protest. 

Akbar, who said he left prison in 2013, said the truck is based on a replica constructed by Edgewood College over a decade ago. That replica was based on Akbar’s own experience in solitary confinement. 

Hot days, like the day of the protest, can bring an additional burden for people in prisons, many of whom do not have access to air conditioning. 

Crystal Keller of FREE Movement, which focuses on women impacted by the justice system, said she’s been raising her grandson while her daughter has been incarcerated at Taycheedah Correctional Institution. She said her daughter is currently in restrictive housing, also known as solitary confinement. 

“Because she doesn’t have access to a tablet, my daughter and I are limited to one 15-minute phone call every nine or 10 days,” Keller said, adding that she can’t visit her daughter in person in restrictive housing and that logging onto video visits requires driving more than an hour each way. 

Hardtke, the DOC communications director, said in her statement to the Examiner that the “popular image” of restrictive housing often shows a “small dark room,” which she said is inaccurate. 

“I should also note that the popular image of restrictive housing often shows a small dark room,” Hardtke said. “It’s not accurate. The cells in the restricted housing unit at Waupun Correctional Institution, for example, have windows where individuals can see outdoors. Individuals can control their own lights in their cells. Clocks are hung to be visible from every cell front.”

Hardtke stated that people in disciplinary separation — people sent to solitary confinement because they were found to have committed a violation — “still have plenty of human interaction each day.” She attached a copy of a restrictive housing policy and said it lays out that a person is supposed to be kept there for the “minimum amount of time necessary to help them change their behavior.”

“They have access to visits, recreation, therapy and programming in their cell and on the restrictive housing unit,” Hardtke said. “Communication with family and others is not cut off. Individuals in disciplinary separation also have the opportunity to be released back into the general population after serving only half of their sentence if their behavior in restrictive housing is appropriate.”

A report the DOC released in November from its partnership with Falcon Inc., a consulting and management firm, took a different tone on solitary confinement. 

The DOC has contracted with the firm to implement a series of reform proposals, the Examiner reported earlier this month.

The Falcon report released in November stated that out-of-cell programming and recreation time is “very limited,” and that each individual in restrictive housing should receive a minimum of two hours of out-of-cell time per day for recreation and/or programming, not including necessary activities like showers. 

A person involved with the Wisconsin Mental Health Action Partnership (MHAP), which aims to improve mental health care in Wisconsin, sent the Examiner a slideshow dated March of this year that the DOC reportedly presented to one of the group’s committees. 

The slideshow indicates that the Department of Corrections was stating that the agency would need at least one of the following to provide two hours of out-of-cell time per day for each person in restrictive housing: additional staffing, material resources, new construction or remodeling, technology upgrades or significant changes to current policies or operations. 

The Falcon report also stated that restrictive housing initiatives still require support, particularly to improve conditions for incarcerated people and staff. It made a series of recommendations that aim to decrease the overall use of restrictive housing and improve living conditions, though the slideshow indicates the DOC stated further change is needed before some of these recommendations are feasible.

The report also noted potential negative effects of solitary confinement in general (not specifically analyzing Wisconsin) including physical harm and negative effects on mental health and overall well-being, as well as an increased risk for self-harm and suicide. 

Calls for oversight

One speaker at the protest read a statement from the prison reform advocacy group Ladies of SCI, calling for an ombudsman office for corrections that would help address complaints about prison problems, instead of relying on the prison system’s internal complaint process. 

Prison reform activists have been calling for Wisconsin to join the ranks of states with independent prison oversight bodies since at least 2024. Hardtke told the Examiner that the Department of Corrections supported Evers’ plan to create a DOC ombudsperson’s office, which the governor proposed as part of the last state budget. 

“Again, that is not something the agency can do without legislative action and funding,” Hardtke said. 

Last year, Evers proposed an Office of the Ombudsperson for Corrections that would have been attached to the Department of Corrections, which was removed by lawmakers. Wisconsin Public Radio reported that officials with Evers’ administration said the office would operate in a “functionally independent” manner. 

“We’d much rather see it be completely separate to stay with the purpose of an ombudsman,” Susan Franzen of Ladies of SCI told the Examiner over email last year. “But we would be supportive of any movement towards some sort of oversight at this point.” Rebecca Aubart, of the same group, said that if the office Evers proposed was not independent, it could not be properly described as an ombudsman. 

In February 2025, Wisconsin Public Radio reported that Senate President Mary Felzkowski (R-Tomahawk) criticized the proposal, stating that “de facto lifetime appointments (which the ombudsperson appears to be), almost a dozen new bureaucrats, and millions of dollars are not creative solutions.” 

Overcrowded prisons, especially for women

Yolanda Perkins, of FREE Movement, said that overcrowding in prisons is “suffocating,” not just uncomfortable, and is an environment where mental health breaks down. 

“Women are entering into a system, carrying (trauma already), and instead of receiving care, they are met with long waits, limited access or no support at all,” Perkins said. “Pain that can be treated is ignored until it becomes a crisis.”

In May, Wisconsin Watch reported that the state’s three women’s prisons collectively housed 18 women for every 10 the prisons were designed to hold, and that they were the most crowded of all state facilities. 

In a court filing in April, the DOC said that due to overcrowding, Taycheedah Correctional Institution, a women’s prison, had already undergone conversions to turn spaces into living areas that were not originally meant to be living areas.

Wisconsin Watch reported that Hardtke said beds have previously been set up in the gym at Taycheedah but that no one was currently living in the gym. Hardtke said staff were converting a “former property room” into a dormitory to house 20 women.

This isn’t unheard of for Taycheedah. A 2020 draft report on the DOC’s website indicates that at the time of the report, 340 incarcerated women were living in two “very old buildings” that had been converted into correctional housing. Some group rooms and an office space in those buildings 

Most of the 50-square-foot maximum security, non-segregated cells at the often-scrutinized Green Bay and Waupun Correctional Institutions were being used for double occupancy, and failed to meet standards such as the American Correctional Association Standards for Adult Correctional Institutions.

The Examiner reported in April on how the DOC has said it wants a program that would allow eligible incarcerated women to live with their babies within prison walls but that this is “currently impossible” in the existing prison system. The department cited a lack of sufficient funding and overcrowding in women’s prisons. 

Hardtke said that the Department of Corrections’ role in the justice system is to carry out the sentence the courts impose on a person as well as provide opportunities for rehabilitation and skills so that people can successfully return to communities. 

Except under limited circumstances such as the earned release program, the department doesn’t have the ability to alter a person’s sentence, Hardtke said, adding that reducing the prison population would require legislative changes and resources. 

Community corrections

At the protest, Rice argued that the Department of Corrections needs to put fewer people back behind bars for breaking a rule of their supervision in the community without committing a new crime. 

Rice argued that the money that’s being “wasted” on this type of revocation could be used to help incarcerated people return to the community. 

In her statement to the Examiner, Hardtke argued that while advocates highlight cases where a person’s community supervision was revoked for violating the rules of supervision, most individuals returned to prison have their supervision revoked for criminal behavior. 

Hardtke said that the DOC’s research and policy team recently looked at revocations for 2024 and 2025 to determine how many were solely for rules violations. She said that in 2025, 6,952 people had their community supervision revoked for a criminal offense and 1,188 individuals were revoked because of a non-criminal rules violation. 

In 2024, 7,064 people were revoked for a criminal offense and 1,026 were revoked for a non-criminal rules violation, she said. 

A teenager charged with the same crime can face dramatically different consequences depending on where they live.

In one state, a young person accused of a serious offense may be sent to a juvenile facility focused on treatment and rehabilitation. In another, they could face adult criminal proceedings, a permanent record and the possibility of an adult prison sentence.

This year, more than half a dozen states, including Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri and Utah, have passed new laws reshaping their juvenile legal systems. While some have adopted measures designed to divert more young people from incarceration, others have sought to impose stiffer penalties and expand prosecutors’ authority to pursue adult charges. 

The opposite tacks underscore an increasingly fractured approach to juvenile justice nationwide.

The new laws also come as states grapple with how to respond to serious crimes committed by children while weighing decades of research suggesting adolescents are more capable of rehabilitation than adults. 

Videos of youth-involved assaults, carjackings and large gatherings sometimes called “teen takeovers” frequently spread online, fueling renewed debate over whether tougher punishments or expanded diversion programs are the better path to improving public safety.

In Hawaii, for example, a new law signed in June by Democratic Gov. Josh Green requires judges to consider a child’s history of trauma before deciding whether to transfer a juvenile case to adult court. The law, which took effect immediately upon Green’s signature, also prohibits minors who are victims of sex trafficking or sexual assault from being prosecuted as adults for crimes committed as a result of their exploitation.

Research suggests that incarcerating children and teens in adult prisons, where they may face lengthy sentences and restrictive conditions, can increase the risk of reoffending.

“It wasn’t a question of whether kids had been traumatized, but actually how many traumas they’d experienced,” said Sara Thomas, a research assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Northwestern University, referring to research that found young people held at the Cook County Juvenile Temporary Detention Center in Chicago had experienced a median of six traumatic events.

Colorado Democratic Gov. Jared Polis signed into law in March a measure that, when it takes effect in August, will overhaul parts of the state’s youthful offender system by requiring trauma-informed care, individualized treatment plans, therapy and reentry-focused programming.

A new law in Minnesota, which also takes effect in August, will raise the minimum age at which a child can enter the juvenile justice system for an offense from 10 to 13. The change stems from legislation passed in 2024. 

Once it takes effect, Minnesota will become one of only three states with a minimum age of delinquency set at 13, joining Maryland and New Hampshire, according to the National Youth Justice Network, an advocacy and research organization.  

Other states are moving in the opposite direction, giving prosecutors and courts more authority to pursue adult penalties in serious cases and arguing that violent offenses require stronger consequences, regardless of a defendant’s age.

In Missouri, a new law will give prosecutors more authority to seek adult charges against young people. Previously, only a juvenile officer or court could request a hearing to transfer a case to adult court. The law also narrows the offenses eligible for adult prosecution to Class A and Class B felonies, such as homicide, first-degree burglary and certain sex offenses, while requiring juvenile records and fingerprints to be added to the state’s criminal history database.

“Missouri must address the revolving door for repeat violent offenders –– and that includes juveniles,” Republican Gov. Mike Kehoe said in a news release.

Mississippi also expanded the circumstances under which young people can face adult charges. A new law effective this month requires 13-year-olds to automatically be tried in adult court for most violent crimes committed while possessing a firearm, even if the firearm was not used. The law prohibits children younger than 13 from being held responsible in adult court for misdemeanors or felonies, though parents or guardians may face civil liability.

A changing landscape

Beginning in the 1990s, amid concerns over violent youth crime, many states expanded laws that allowed more juveniles to be prosecuted as adults. 

But as juvenile crime declined over the following decades and research on adolescent brain development grew, many states began reconsidering those policies. Research suggests that the parts of the brain involved in impulse control, decision making and evaluating long-term consequences continue developing into early adulthood. 

Maryland Gov. Wes Moore signed the Youth Charging Reform Act into law in May 2026, altering how the state handles juvenile jurisdiction, detention, and confinement. The law, which goes into effect in October, limits when children younger than 13 can be charged with crimes and establishes new reporting metrics to track youth outcomes.

The new law preserves automatic adult court jurisdiction for teens 16 and older accused of offenses punishable by life imprisonment, including homicide and rape. Judges will retain the authority to transfer 14- and 15-year-olds accused of those same life-punishable offenses to adult court under the state’s existing transfer procedures.

The law also tightens detention rules, requiring intake officers to authorize the detention of any child 16 or older accused of a handgun violation or violent crime. By October 2029, children will be barred from being held in adult correctional facilities.

Supporters said the changes recognize that young children who engage in delinquent behavior often have unmet mental health, educational or family needs that are better addressed through services than incarceration.

“This progress brings us closer to ensuring that hundreds of young people in Maryland are met with support and services in the juvenile system, rather than being routed into a process that leads to worse outcomes for both youth and public safety,” state Democratic Sen. Will Smith Jr., the bill’s primary sponsor, said in a news release.

The Maryland State’s Attorneys’ Association views the new law as a step backward, arguing that the state Department of Juvenile Services is not equipped to handle young people accused of violent and repeat offenses.

Baltimore City State’s Attorney Ivan Bates, the association’s president, also criticized the state’s juvenile legal system in a post on X (formerly Twitter), calling it “broken,” just weeks after a multi-jurisdictional crime ring investigation that led to charges against five teens.

“We cannot continue sending children back into a broken system and expect them to be rehabilitated while also expecting our communities to remain safe,” Bates wrote.

Supporters of changes like Maryland’s new law argue that adult convictions can create long-term barriers to employment, housing and education, making it harder for young people to successfully transition into adulthood. Juvenile records are generally confidential.

“Transfer of youth to adult court is bad public policy,” said Mary Ann Scali, the executive director of The Gault Center, a national organization that trains and supports defense attorneys who represent young people in court. “It causes more harm and does not lead to better outcomes for young people or communities.”

Sarah Johnson, senior youth defense counsel with The Gault Center, said research does not support the argument that moving children into adult court improves public safety.

“Transfer does not increase public safety. Transfer increases recidivism. Transfer traumatizes young people because they’re now placed in an adult facility,” Johnson said, noting that children may face heightened risks of physical and sexual abuse from other incarcerated people and staff.

A 2007 review by the Community Preventive Services Task Force, a panel established by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to assess the effectiveness of community-based prevention programs and policies, found that transferring young people to adult court did not reduce reoffending and was associated with higher rates of recidivism.

From the peak in youth arrests in 1996 to 2024, the latest year with available data, youth arrests have declined by about 83%, according to federal data. While the number of estimated youth arrests increased between 2021 and 2023 during the COVID-19 pandemic, they fell again in 2024, which is lower than pre-pandemic levels.

In 2024, children and teens accounted for 6.8% of all arrests, according to the latest crime statistics maintained by the FBI. They made up about 10% of arrests for violent crimes and 9.5% of arrests for property crimes.

Despite the long-term decline in youth arrests, states continue to debate how to handle the small percentage of young people involved in serious offenses — and what approaches are most effective at preventing future crime. 

In Utah, lawmakers approved a measure allowing judges to send someone convicted of aggravated murder to adult prison if the person was 17 at the time of the offense and turns 18 before sentencing. The law also expands the state’s collection of recidivism data, including information on arrests and jail time.

Kansas, meanwhile, moved in the opposite direction this year, rolling back parts of a 2016 legislative package designed to reduce youth confinement. A new law, which was adopted in April, creates additional residential placements, expands detention requirements for some youth accused of firearm offenses and repeat offenses, and increases possible sentences for youth who use firearms during crimes. 

Accountability and public safety

While some experts emphasize rehabilitation and keeping young people out of the adult system, others argue that accountability and public safety must remain central goals — particularly when young people commit serious violent offenses. They argue that rehabilitation should not come at the expense of accountability and that the justice system must address the harm caused to victims and communities.

In 2024, Louisiana and North Carolina both passed laws expanding the circumstances under which older teens can face adult criminal proceedings.

In Louisiana, a law pushed by Republican Gov. Jeff Landry rolled back the 2017 “Raise the Age” law that had moved most 17-year-olds into the juvenile justice system while allowing prosecutors to seek adult charges in individual cases. The new law requires all 17-year-olds accused of crimes to be processed through the adult criminal justice system, removing that case-by-case discretion.

As the state has embraced a more punitive approach, it has also seen the cost of its juvenile legal system rise — as well as the number of young people behind bars.

Louisiana also is expanding its youth prison capacity, with plans to open a new 56-bed juvenile facility in Vernon Parish and add 36 beds at the Jetson Center for Youth in East Baton Rouge Parish. 

Some youth advocates say the expansion risks exposing more young people to the harms associated with incarceration.

“When you build a jail, you find a way to fill them,” said Alaina Bloodworth, the executive director of the Black Public Defender Association. Bloodworth previously served as a public defender in Baton Rouge for seven years. “We’re just really going backwards.” 

In North Carolina, a 2024 law requires 16- and 17-year-olds charged with Class A through E felonies to begin their cases in adult criminal court rather than juvenile court, reversing a previous effort to raise the age of juvenile court jurisdiction. The change has contributed to a sharp increase in the share of youth in detention who are facing adult charges, rising from 39% in 2024 to 65% in 2025, according to the state’s annual report on juvenile justice.

The debate over how to balance accountability and rehabilitation has also been shaped by high-profile incidents involving young people that receive widespread attention online. Viral videos of youth assaults, carjackings and large gatherings have fueled public pressure for tougher approaches to youth crime.

In South Carolina, a Fourth of July city-permitted neighborhood block party in North Charleston drew national attention after videos of the incident spread online. Police said the gathering turned violent, with reports of fights, gunfire and fireworks being fired at vehicles. Officers recovered four firearms, including two automatic weapons, as well as a “makeshift spear,” according to local police.

Two female police officers were injured while attempting to break up fights, and seven people, including four teenagers, were arrested, according to local police.

“We need some help from the community because stuff like this is getting dangerous,” North Charleston police Chief Ron Camacho said during a news conference.  

“I’m looking for any way possible to try and solve this issue of unruly juveniles.” 

Stateline reporter Amanda Watford can be reached at awatford@stateline.org.

On June 19, Gov. Tony Evers announced the names of eight appointees to the newly formed Commutation Advisory Board he created by executive order on April 4.

Under the governor’s authority in the Wisconsin Constitution, a commutation, which is a shortening or a modification of a criminal sentence, is one of the governor’s powers of clemency along with pardons and reprieves.

Evers said in his executive order creating the board that offering commutations “promotes rehabilitation by providing a system that rewards the positive efforts of incarcerated individuals who demonstrate personal growth and a commitment to change with the possibility of a second chance to contribute to society, become productive members of their communities, make amends, and improve their lives and those of the people around them.” 

One of the eight appointees is Noble Wray, 66, a career police officer who served as Madison’s police chief from 2004-2013. He was a member of Gov. Evers’ Pardon Advisory Board from 2019-2025 where he reviewed applications, including asking applicants why they believed they merited a pardon. In an interview, he spoke with the Examiner about why he chose to serve on the commutations board and the unique perspective he brings to the role. 

Why did you want to serve on the board?

“In total, I’m 100% in support of commutations,” said Wray. “I think it’s critical for the criminal justice system to have something like this in place.”

On the Pardon Advisory Board, Wray said he was inspired by stories of people who took accountability for their lives and were making meaningful changes.

“I’ve worked or reviewed just about every part of the criminal justice system during my career,” he said, “and nothing has been more personally fulfilling than the pardon board.”

He agreed to be on the Commutation Advisory Board, he said, because he believes people in prison who are trying to make constructive changes to become productive citizens should have an incentive to pursue those changes. He believes it’s important for the state to support  successful reentry into society, focusing on employment, family support, treatment and accessing services.

“Being involved in criminal justice reform for so long and understanding that you can’t just look at a system that has punishment as its only motivation — human beings are more complex than that,” he said. “There are people that we know that can contribute to society, and the system, the structure must provide triggers, must provide systems to acknowledge those folks, both in prison and when they have completed their time.”

But he also acknowledged an applicant might not be ready for a commutation.

“I’m here to tell you, the first to tell you, it may not be for everyone,” he said. “It may be that someone just needs time to think through what they’ve done and to really grasp and understand it. It may be, you know, taking college credits. It may be working while they’re in prison on vocational training.”

What is the importance of the Commutation Advisory Board?

Wray emphasized that the advisory board brings together members  from different backgrounds in the criminal justice and social services system, with diverse experiences, who will challenge one another and offer varied perspectives.

“So you know I support commutations,” he said. “But you know what? I am a cop. I’ve lived my whole life being a cop, and bottom line, I want to make sure that people in the community and out on the streets are safe, that neighborhoods are safe. So if I see something or hear something that I think is going to compromise that, I’m going to push back.”

At the same time, he added, someone who has  a different perspective could see something he doesn’t perceive.

“What I hope we would get out of this is that we really hear what the people are saying that are requesting a commutation,” he said. ”And we really review the information and make the best decision, balancing the need to have a human being get back into Wisconsin society and make a contribution to Wisconsin society, balancing that with ensuring that no one will be harmed in any way, shape or form by this person.”

Asked about the pressure to ensure that the board doesn’t make a bad decision, leading to more harm caused by someone whose sentence is commuted,  Wray drew on his experience  as a police officer. It’s wrong, he said, to treat an entire neighborhood as being made up of criminals when only a few people are causing problems. He said the same standard should be applied to commutations, not letting one person’s bad actions ruin the chances for others who are trying to change their lives.

“Politically, people will get up and say, ‘Hey, this thing failed because one person did this,’” Wray said. “How sad is that when you can help others? Now, again, I understand you can’t place all of the emphasis on helping someone that has done something wrong to society, but if everything is totally punishment, you don’t have a balance” between punishment of the crime and rehabilitation of the offender.  “That’s why the numbers stay the same, because you don’t have a balance,” he added, referring to Wisconsin’s prison population which is on track to break the record set in 2019 of 23,826 people behind bars, many more than the state’s prison system was designed to hold.

Asked if he knew how the advisory board would evaluate applications for those who meet the minimum criteria to apply, Wray said he thought it would be similar to the Pardon Advisory Board, but also noted that there is no official guideline yet.

“We’re supposed to come together and meet and discuss that,” he said, adding that he expects it will involve “exercising some discretion.”

What perspective do you bring to the Commutation Advisory Board?

Wray said his background in law enforcement and his work on other boards will inform his work on the commutation board. 

“My common background being law enforcement, that I spent 30 years attempting to reduce fear, harm and disorder in the Madison area …  that’s really, you know, where it starts,” he said.  “I also bring a perspective of dealing with people at a level that probably no one gets to see other than a police officer, and that is in that hour of need, hour of distress, or when it happens, you’re out there … it’s that intimate time of a crisis or call or problem that very few people will see.”

He added that a police officer has to hold people accountable while also supporting and caring for victims, and “doing it with humility and with practical wisdom. I think that I bring that perspective.”

Wray also noted his experience consulting across the United States and internationally as an expert in police reform, police culture and implicit bias in policing.

“We don’t talk about this, but there is a financial cost to justice,” Wray added, “and if it’s not properly handled, if we’re too focused on arresting and incarcerating people, there is a cost, but there’s also a financial cost if we’re not doing the right thing by keeping communities safe.”

Finally, reflecting on his experience both in law enforcement and in his work on criminal justice reform, Wray said, “I just wish that more people could see when redemption is exercised properly.”

The seven other appointees to the commutation board include Maryann Sumi, a former Dane County Circuit Judge; David Meany, a former Ashland County District Attorney; Jerome Dillard, a criminal justice advocate and former executive director of EXPO (Ex-incarcerated People Organizing); Kathy Byrne Stilling, a former public defender, criminal defense attorney and retired Waukesha County Circuit Judge; Jonathan Scharrer, University of Wisconsin Law School professor and Director of the Restorative Justice Project; Geri Segal, the former executive director of Family Support Center in Chippewa Valley;  and Kat Kasmaule, program and policy analyst for the Wisconsin Department of Children and Families and a former child protection case manager.

The eight will join chair Mel Barnes, Evers’ chief legal counsel, and vice chair Cindy O’Donnell, a corrections veteran.

Fifteen states on Friday sued the Trump administration to prevent millions of dollars in cuts to school-based mental health funding.

The new lawsuit is part of an ongoing legal battle between Democratic-led states and the U.S. Department of Education over a mental health grant program that Congress established following the 2018 school shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida.

At stake is a $1 billion program that offers grants to school districts across the country to help them hire and train more mental health professionals to work in schools.

Democratic attorneys general in 15 states say the Trump administration, in defiance of a December 2025 court order, plans to unlawfully terminate the grants at the end of this month, resulting in millions in lost funding.

“Our children deal with a unique set of problems which arise from growing up in 2026 — from loneliness to substance use disorder to the ever-present fear of violence — and the programs funded through these grants are designed to help them cope and hopefully thrive,” said Rhode Island Attorney General Peter F. Neronha, a Democrat, in a statement announcing the lawsuit.

In 2022, after a school shooting in Uvalde, Texas, claimed the lives of 19 students and two teachers, Congress allocated $1 billion to the Mental Health Service Professional Demonstration Grant Program to increase the number of school-based mental health professionals.

That funding effort was bipartisan; at the time Republican U.S. senators including John Cornyn of Texas, Susan Collins of Maine and Thom Tillis of North Carolina publicly supported it. And within a year, the grants had funded mental and behavioral health services to nearly 775,000 students nationwide.

But in April 2025, under President Donald Trump, the U.S. Department of Education told grantees the funding would be halted because their programs conflicted with Trump administration priorities. At that time, the grants were supporting efforts in 49 states to prepare thousands of mental health professionals to work in K-12 schools.

Trump administration officials told the media that the grants were cut over what the administration saw as connections to diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives.

A coalition of 17 Democratic state attorneys general sued last July, and a court ruled in their favor, ordering the Trump administration to stop the grant discontinuation. In the months since the order, the education department has threatened to withhold funding or terminate the grants altogether.

The Democratic attorneys general said they filed the new lawsuit to cover gaps in the previous court order that could allow the Trump administration to follow through on its desire to halt the funding.

“The courts have repeatedly ruled that the Trump Administration does not have the power to arbitrarily revoke grant funding that provides critical mental health services to our students,” said Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell, a Democrat, in a statement about joining the lawsuit.

“Still, the federal government continues its attempts to terminate funding.”

Stateline reached out to the U.S. Department of Education for comment but did not receive a response before publication.

Attorneys general participating in the lawsuit are from California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington and Wisconsin.

Stateline reporter Anna Claire Vollers can be reached at avollers@stateline.org

In 2025, the number of adults in Wisconsin prisons for drunk driving and other Operating While Intoxicated offenses was four times higher than it was in 2000, according to a report published Thursday by the Wisconsin Policy Forum. 

The report describes Wisconsin’s penalties for initial OWI convictions as generally less severe than those in neighboring states, but says Wisconsin has among the most severe penalties for the most serious convictions. 

A record number of 1,313 adults entered the Wisconsin prison system in 2023 for OWI offenses, though declining admissions over the next two years suggest that “they may now be trending downward,” the forum said in its press release. 

In December 2025, 2,750 adults were incarcerated in Wisconsin prisons for OWI offenses, which doesn’t include people incarcerated in local jails for lower-level offenses. People incarcerated for OWIs make up a larger share of people in Wisconsin prisons than they used to, the report found, from about 3% in 2000 to about 12% in 2025. These numbers declined from 2024 to 2025 but remain higher than they once were. Black Wisconsinites and American Indian/Alaska Native Wisconsinites are overrepresented in Wisconsin prisons for OWIs.  

 

From 2020 to 2024, incarceration for OWI offenses rose sharply, the report states. A backlog of OWI cases in the court system, changes in behavior and policies that increased penalties for people who have committed four or more OWI offenses may have contributed to this trend. 

OWI arrest data suggests that Wisconsin may be making fewer arrests for less severe drunk driving and more arrests for severe or repeat offenses, with less arrests overall, the report states. 

The state is facing prison overcrowding and increasing financial and human costs of the prison system and a “relationship with alcohol use that many public health leaders view as problematic,” the report states. 

It lists a series of measures that policymakers could consider to address the problem without increasing incarceration for OWIs. It says these are strategies being used in other states that have been shown to reduce consumption of alcohol or drunk driving. 

Some of these ideas involve more programming:

• State funding for alcohol age compliance check programs 
• More Wisconsin communities implementing a Place of Last Drink program, in which police can identify bars and restaurants where people last consumed alcohol before committing an OWI, aiding local data to address drunk driving
• Creating OWI or hybrid courts that help connect people charged with OWIs to programs or resources that may be more likely to prevent another OWI than a regular sentence, especially in areas where these courts are less common, such as northern Wisconsin. 
• Improving access to substance use programs in Wisconsin prisons by increasing funding
• Giving people better options for alternative transportation after they have consumed alcohol, particularly in rural areas

Other ideas involve new restrictions: 

• Imposing higher taxes on one or more types of alcohol
• Limiting alcohol licenses for retailers, or reduce alcohol permits (Wisconsin has one alcohol outlet per 345 people, the report states,  citing the Medical College of Wisconsin, far above the national average)
• Reducing the legal BAC limit to 0.05% as recommended by the National Transportation Safety Board
• Decreasing the days and hours during which retailers can sell alcohol

A federal judge Wednesday fined former Milwaukee County Judge Hannah Dugan $5,000 for obstructing an immigration arrest outside her courtroom, declining to sentence her to prison or probation. 

The long-awaited decision came seven months after Dugan was convicted in December and  over a year after she confronted an undercover arrest team of federal agents waiting outside her courtroom to arrest Eduardo Florez-Ruiz, a Mexican-born man who was appearing in her court in a domestic violence case. 

When he was taken into custody in April 2025, Florez-Ruiz was one of a series of immigrants arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) at the Milwaukee County courthouse over a period of a few weeks. Judges began drafting a policy to guide interactions with ICE around the facility, concerned that the arrests would have a chilling effect on people using the courthouse or appearing for hearings. 

Dugan, in her judicial robe, confronted the arrest team in the hallway outside her courtroom alongside a fellow judge, who later testified against Dugan at her trial. Dugan told the agents to check in with Chief Judge Carl Ashley before going back to her own court to set a new court date for Florez-Ruiz. 

Dugan then allowed Florez-Ruiz and his attorney to exit the courtroom using a non-public hallway. The pair went back out into the main public hallway and unknowingly rode the elevator down with an undercover agent. Florez-Ruiz was arrested outside the courthouse after a brief chase. 

Dugan was charged with obstructing an immigration proceeding and concealing Florez-Ruiz from agents. After her high-profile trial in December, a jury found her guilty of felony obstruction but not guilty of concealing Flores-Ruiz. Federal prosecutors asked Judge Lynn Adelman to send Dugan to prison.

Adelman rejected an appeal by Dugan’s defense team to overturn her conviction. On Wednesday, however, he listened patiently as people took the stand to testify about Dugan’s character. 

Witnesses described Dugan  as a talented attorney and as someone who had dedicated her entire life to public service. She presided over thousands of cases as an elected judge and was also active in her church and volunteered her time to help some of the most vulnerable people in the city, supporters said. 

Dugan also spoke briefly, saying that her case had been politicized and that she is neither the hero nor the villain that she had been made out to be. Due to the ICE arrests, she said, the courthouse had been placed in an untenable position. She told Adelman that “it is with a heavy heart” that she stood before him as a defendant, and that she wants to return to her service to the community. 

Prosecutors countered that good people can make bad or criminal decisions, and that Dugan deserved a sentence that reflects the need for citizens to obey the law. The former judge committed an “abuse of trust” they said.  

Prosecutors also dismissed what they called “collateral consequences” Dugan experienced after her arrest, including having to resign her judgeship, having to move following threats on her life, being convicted as a felon and having to remove herself from community service and participation in public events. They repeatedly brought up Dugan’s assertion to court staff that she’d “take the heat” for dealing with the agents. 

Adelman said he had considered all the circumstances of the case and relevant laws in weighing his sentencing decision.

“This is a person that’s done a lot of good for our community,” said Adelman, noting that Dugan, who is 67, has no prior criminal record.

Adelman said that he believed Dugan was not in need of “corrective treatment”  such as a prison term or  or probation. He said that it is important that a punishment not only fit the crime, but also fit the offender, and that what prosecutors called “collateral consequences” were sufficient punishments.

Adleman told Dugan that the $5,000 fine he imposed is due immediately. Dugan’s attorneys spoke briefly to media outside, saying that they plan to appeal the case. They did not take questions, and prosecutors did not appear outside to talk to reporters. 

Earlier this year, the Wisconsin Department of Corrections entered into a  contract to put a series of reform proposals into practice.

DOC Secretary Jared Hoy signed the contract with Falcon Correctional and Community Services, Inc, a consulting and management firm that produced a report and made recommendations in partnership with the DOC. 

The report gave Wisconsin’s adult prison system advice on how to provide incarcerated people with better healthcare, reduce prisons’ use of solitary confinement and address a persistent understaffing problem. It found a significant number of staff were hired during or after the COVID-19 pandemic, and that newer staff had limitations because they were trained while normal operations were suspended due to the pandemic. 

The report also found a “general lack of uniformity” across facilities, creating problems with monitoring, oversight and accountability. Facilities needed a standard approach to basic security practices, incident reporting, investigations and hiring practices, the report recommended. 

In the contract documents, the DOC and Falcon plan to implement recommendations from the report, though the report stated that the majority of recommendations will require funding from the state. Susan Franzen of the prison reform advocacy group Ladies of SCI expressed concern about whether overcrowding and staffing shortages will affect the agency’s ability to effectively carry out the recommendations, and called for action from the state Legislature. 

Contract documents obtained by the Examiner in May show that “Phase 1” of the partnership involves Falcon helping the department turn recommendations into plans for action, visiting facilities, providing mentorship and coaching and helping prepare prisons to maintain the new changes after the partnership is over. 

The Department of Corrections didn’t respond to the Examiner’s requests for comment about whether any changes have been made to the contract’s status or the documents since the Examiner received them from the department on May 13. 

According to the documents, “Phase 1” focuses on six prisons, including the often-scrutinized Green Bay and Waupun Correctional Institutions.

The other prisons included in this phase are Taycheedah Correctional Institution, which houses women, the maximum-security Columbia Correctional Institution and the medium-security Redgranite and Stanley Correctional Institutions. 

DOC will follow recommendations from various priorities in the Falcon report, which include sections on solitary confinement, medical and mental health practices and human resources and staffing, according to the contract documents. 

Franzen of the Ladies of SCI said in a May interview that she thinks the Department of Corrections leadership in Madison wants to improve the system. She expressed concern about whether the change in approach will be carried out at the level of individual correctional officers working in particular units in the prison system. 

Some efforts may happen at a system-wide level when appropriate, according to the contract documents. This includes Falcon working with the DOC to train staff throughout the department’s division of adult prisons in two areas: “security back-to-basics” and building a culture of dignity and respect. 

For Franzen, the partnership raises the question of what metrics will be used to determine whether the department is succeeding at creating this culture. 

“I want to hear things from family members [of incarcerated people] that are different,” Franzen said. 

The department also planned a review of its adult prison policies to begin in March 2026. The goal is to fix gaps and redundancies and to have the policies match the new reforms. 

Under the contract, the project cost can’t go above $500,000 without prior approval from the DOC, with Falcon receiving payment in four installments after completion of tasks.

Site visits

The contract lists plans for two Falcon site visits, along with a third that would happen later in the phase if the DOC decides it is necessary. 

The first visit and a DOC/Falcon leadership summit were scheduled for early March 2026. It’s unclear whether the second visit has happened yet; the documents say it will take place partway through the process of implementing reforms. 

The second visit aims to provide mentoring, identify problems and review how the reforms are being put into practice, the contract documents say. The visit will be “strategically targeted” based on information gathered through remote monitoring and Department of Corrections oversight. 

The third visit, if the department holds it, would focus on sustaining improvements, leadership readiness and reform in the long term.

“There’s only so much you can tell from a video call,” Franzen said. “…I would hope that they take advantage of that [potential third visit], because I think that’s going to be a really good way to help reinforce things, and making sure that things have changed.”

Advocates want more oversight

The Department of Corrections has held friends and family forums for loved ones of people who are incarcerated or on active community supervision, and Franzen said advocates participated in a virtual workshop for the Falcon report last year. But Franzen wishes the Falcon report had dug deeper, and she also wants to see Wisconsin create an independent ombudsman’s office with oversight over the DOC. 

“I appreciate that they’re doing this, but yes… this is money that also could’ve been put towards an ombuds for someone that’s in it for the long haul,” Franzen said. “And also not someone who’s depending on a paycheck from the DOC.” 

Mark Rice, criminal justice campaign coordinator for the advocacy organization WISDOM, wants to see people impacted by the prison system having a central role in the process. 

Rice took issue with one of the contract documents, which states Falcon cannot employ a person who is on active probation, parole or extended supervision for any position where their primary duties involve working with incarcerated people or involves access to the records or funds of incarcerated people. 

“I feel that’s a lost opportunity,” Rice said. “Some of the people who would be the best and most informed people to be a part of this as paid staff are people currently under supervision.”

Galo Suárez, 25, was in a car near the El Rey Food Market on 13th St. in Milwaukee with his fiance Reyna Elizabeth Garcia and her brother Teodoro last weekend, when they realized they were being followed. A truck stopped in front of them and four more pulled up behind them. Suárez, related the experience  in Spanish as members of Voces de la Frontera translated during a Tuesday press conference. He said  masked Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents began breaking their car windows and threatened them with “several heavy consequences” if they didn’t comply. 

“They had guns pointed at us,” Suárez said, as he sat beside other witnesses of ICE arrests, Voces de la Frontera leaders and local elected officials at the Voces office in Milwaukee. “They didn’t ask us for our names, they didn’t ask us for an I.D. They took us violently out of the car.” His fiance was put against the car “in a very violent way” said Suárez. The agents called her a dog, he said, and told her “that is what happens to you.”

The encounter was not an anomaly. As of Tuesday, Voces de la Frontera’s hotline had corroborated 26-28 ICE detentions over the last few days in Wisconsin. “We know that many of the people are being held in Dodge, Waukesha County, Chicago-Maywood, Kentucky, Miami, Florida,” Voces said in a statement. Even as the press conference played out, two more confirmed ICE reports came in from Fitchburg, a suburb of Madison.

Some detainees have serious medical conditions, Voces director Christine Neumann-Ortiz said, adding that the detentions have been traumatic. She said Voces has documented four cases of excessive use of force and two cases of people who were crime victims actively going through legal proceedings when they were detained by ICE. “One of which is a U-Visa applicant, that is not supposed to be deportable,” she said.

A spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security said in an email statement that ICE arrested “39 illegal aliens” in Wisconsin over the weekend, stating that “many of them” had criminal histories including sexual assault, driving under the influence, obstructing police, domestic abuse, property damage, “dangerous drug possession,” and other crimes. The spokesperson said that all detainees receive due process, and that pending applications for protected status or asylum “do not confer legal status in this country.”

Neumann-Ortiz called this “a targeted ICE surge” hitting “working-class families” including those seeking asylum from violence in their home countries and people with Temporary Protected Status. The “overwhelming majority” of the people ICE has swept up in Wisconsin over the last several days have no criminal record, Neumann-Ortiz said, though some have deportation orders. Voces is partnering with the Community Immigration Law Center to review cases, help families locate their loved ones and to prepare legal support.

Violence, insults and trauma from federal agents

Suárez said that he and his family were handcuffed by agents who refused to tell them where they were going and would not allow them to speak. “They said I didn’t have the right to know anything, “perro” — dog,” said Suárez, his words translated into English by Alexandra Guevara, communications director for Voces de la Frontera. “We stopped at a parking lot. They took my belongings. They took my wallet, found my working permit. They were trying to force me to say it was fake. I insisted that it was real and that he could check online, so he did.” Most of the agents behaved this way, Suárez told Wisconsin Examiner. 

He kept asking the agents about his fiance, as they had been separated by the agents. “The agents said that she definitely would be detained and not come back yet,” he said. When one of the agents found his documentation and said he’d be freed, another reneged the assurance because they also wanted to look for drugs among his belongings. When the agents questioned why he had money in his wallet, Suárez said it’s because he works. They checked the work permit again, said, “You’re a good person,” and agreed to release him. They took the cuffs off and told him to “run and not look back, because if I looked back I would regret it.” 

His fiance, who also has a work permit, and her brother were kept in detention. Although Suárez has been able to contact his fiance, who was taken to Kenosha, he hasn’t been able to find her brother. “We don’t know where he is,” said Suárez. 

Jacqueline Eckstrom, a resident of the suburban city of Greenfield, witnessed another arrest. On Friday afternoon she has just left a market where she was buying  food  when she saw SUVs with Illinois license plates blocking the road. She chose to park behind the vehicles instead of driving into oncoming traffic. “They did have police vests, but they also had masks,” Eckstrom said, adding that she knows Milwaukee well enough to know that police officers don’t wear masks. “They proceeded, they smashed the window of the car and grabbed the mom aggressively out of the car. And it all happened real quickly, and they took off.” 

Eckstrom remembers crying children, and walking up to the car’s broken window. “There’s shards of glass everywhere,” she said, “and there’s two kids in the backseat.” Her voice trembled as she spoke.  Eckstrom recalled that “the sister was hugging her brother. It broke my heart.” Neumann-Ortiz translated Eckstrom’s words, her voice also strained with emotion. Eckstrom recalled meeting a child  whose mother had been deported and who came through her foster home a decade ago. “He had trauma, but he never watched his mom smashed and grabbed out the car,” said Eckstrom. “I can’t get it out my mind, this weekend, the trauma that these kids are going to think, with someone wearing police vests, that’s not the police, with masks on their head, taking their mom.”

 

 

A neighbor and the fiance of Estenderly Marte Polanco, from the Dominican Republic, also spoke at the Voces office Tuesday. Polanco was arrested on Saturday. The neighbor said she’d gotten a call from her 11-year-old son, who was crying because he didn’t know how to console Polanco’s distraught son, who was in the backseat when agents removed his mother from the car. Her neighbor said that Polaco fainted at one point, and that she was telling agents they were hurting her as she was taken to the car. The arrest was captured on video. 

The masked agents took the keys and made the father and the son walk home. The neighbor said she’d lived near Polanco for two years, and sees her as a dedicated mother who is not a threat to the community. Her fiance called her “a very good person” and said the arrest has been “very devastating for our family.” She added that the agents busted Polanco’s lip, threw her on the ground, called her names and choked her. “They had her face in between her legs where she couldn’t breath,” Polanco’s fiance said, stating that she had to bite one of them to make him let her go.

The sister of a Nicaraguan man who was arrested on Friday also spoke at the press conference. She said that her brother has kidney disease and is sick. “It’s a serious problem,” the woman said in Spanish as Guevara translated. She described him as a shy, hard worker who supports his kids and takes care of his mother. She said that she has been trying desperately to reach him. “He is in urgent need of medicine or his kidneys could collapse and he could even die,” Guevara translated. “He really needs special attention and special food.” The arrest has devastated his family and his sister. Unsure of what to do, they are begging for assistance.

A Homeland Security spokesperson said that ICE agents are trained to use “the minimum amount of force necessary to resolve dangerous situations,” and that agents prioritize the safety of detainees, the public and officers. All use of force incidents are documented and subject to review, the spokesperson said. Although the spokesperson said that detainees get “comprehensive medical care,” deaths in ICE custody in 2026 are outpacing those from 2025, when 32 people died, making it the worst year for deaths in ICE custody in two decades. 

Broken trust and promises with Milwaukee PD and sheriff 

Like Neumann-Ortiz, Milwaukee city Ald. Marina Dimitrijevic and Milwaukee County Board Supervisor Juan Miguel Martinez — who also attended the Tuesday press conference — became emotional while listening to the stories of witnesses. Dimitrijevic shook her head, looking disgusted. Neumann-Ortiz cried at one point, and Martinez looked weary and sad. 

Video of the arrests shows ICE agents violating the city’s prohibition on law enforcement wearing masks. The prohibition is part of Milwaukee’s “ICE Out Package,” which local officials passed almost unanimously after watching the scenes of violence during the ICE surge in Minnesota.

A Homeland Security spokesperson said that such local orders are unconstitutional, that federal law trumps state or local laws, and that agents wear masks to protect themselves and their families from “real-world threats,” claiming that assaults on agents are up more than 1,300%, vehicular attacks by more than 3,300%, and death threats death threats by 8,000%. Dimitrijevic said that masked agents are unidentifiable and are terrifying to local residents.

Dimitrijevic said that the recent arrests do not make the city safer. She also said that city officials were shocked to learn that some of ICE’s activities were filmed taking place at a Milwaukee Police Department station. “We didn’t believe it, we couldn’t believe it,” she said. Not only did the ICE Out Package prohibit that sort of thing from happening, but MPD has its own long-standing policy of not cooperating with or participating in immigration enforcement in order to preserve the community’s trust in local law enforcement. 

An MPD spokesperson confirmed that ICE agents used the District 2 station on Milwaukee’s South Side. The spokesperson said that MPD has asked ICE to not use the parking lot, and that the department did not know in advance that ICE would be using it. MPD also said that no one, including the district’s command staff, gave ICE permission to use the parking lot or allowed them in. 

Suárez said that he was confused by the use of MPD facilities by ICE. “It’s very confusing to think that they’re taking us to a parking spot that is the police’s parking spot,” said Suárez, as Guevara translated, recalling his arrest. “And knowing that they’re not supposed to collaborate, but all of a sudden we’re there in front of that area. And so it does make me think and wonder if they’re not really collaborating.”

 

 

Martinez said that the county board learned that ICE had staged in a county park, violating a local ordinance. Sheriff Denita Ball said that she only found out after the fact, and that deputies will communicate to ICE in the future that the agency can’t stage in the parks. 

Martinez urged residents to continue documenting these instances so that the county can sue ICE in the future for not complying with local ordinances. 

“These are kind of small things that we’re trying to get done,” said Martinez. “Not allowing them in our parks is the idea here to slow them down or stop what they’re doing to terrorize our communities as much as possible. Just hearing these stories…My brain is a little bit scrambled right now. I feel like we’re not dealing with people. I feel like we’re dealing with some kind of entity that’s just here to terrorize, and disrupt, and break apart our way of life.” 

Dimitrijevic said that moving forward the city will need to trust what MPD says about ICE activity, but also verify it. “And there is now going to be more questions and an investigation into what happened, who knew, etc.,” she told the Examiner. Martinez said he’s been skeptical of law enforcement ever since officers pulled guns on him when he was 11 years old. “I would hope that they would do what they’re supposed to do,” he told the Examiner. “And all I can do is just keep pushing and making sure that they’re going to do what they’re going to do.”

He also rejected a suggestion  from a reporter that  the ICE Out Package was a bad idea and put a target on the city. Pointing to President Donald Trump’s promises of a mass deportation campaign, and internal ICE memos saying that judicial warrants aren’t needed to enter homes, and other examples, Martinez said, “We had to prepare for what was coming and what we were going to be dealing with.”

A Homeland Security spokesperson said that “being in detention is a choice.” The agency encouraged “all illegal aliens to take control of their departure with the CBP Home App,” adding that immigrants without documents are being offered $2,600 and a free flight to self-deport. “We encourage every person here illegally to take advantage of this offer and reserve the chance to come back to the U.S. the right legal way to live the American dream. If not, you will be arrested and deported without a chance to return.”

Neumann-Ortiz said that ICE needs to be abolished. “It’s a fairly new agency,” and yet it has a “long record of functioning like a rogue agency,” she said. 

She said ICE has been one of the worst agencies in terms of oversight and accountability. “And I think that has just reached its most extreme level, and clearly the priorities are not safety. It is white nationalist ideology, and it’s using violence to enforce this,” Neumann-Ortiz said. She called for comprehensive  immigration reform and said Wisconsin’s political importance is also a reason why the surge is happening now.

“I want people to know that they are lying,” Suárez told the Examiner. “They’re saying that they are only detaining criminals, but the truth is my fiance and her brother are good people, they’re hardworking, they have no record, and those lies are being used against us and to confuse us.”

Hundreds of people fill a downtown street for a protest, waving signs and chanting as they march past businesses and government buildings. Overhead, a police drone records video of the crowd. Nearby traffic cameras and license plate readers capture faces, vehicles and movements along the route.

With artificial intelligence, experts say, hours of footage can be analyzed in minutes, making it easier for police to track or target a participant long after the demonstration ends.

As law enforcement agencies increasingly embrace AI, some civil liberties advocates, legal scholars and policing experts warn that the technology could amplify surveillance, introduce hidden biases into investigations and make it harder to challenge evidence in court. They also worry about a future in which AI takes on a more active role in policing and criminal investigations.

“It’s especially concerning sort of the ways that these tools could supercharge that kind of surveillance and enforcement,” said Rachel Levinson-Waldman, the director of the liberty and national security program at the Brennan Center for Justice, a nonpartisan law and policy organization at the New York University School of Law. Levinson-Waldman has written extensively about the risks of police surveillance and the unregulated use of AI in policing.

Artificial intelligence in policing is not new. For decades, law enforcement agencies have used data-driven and automated tools, including facial recognition systems, automated license plate readers, predictive policing models and video analytics that can flag objects or activity in recorded footage.

What is changing is the speed, scope and complexity of those tools. As police departments accumulate growing volumes of digital evidence — from body camera footage and surveillance video to jail calls, social media records and case files — AI is increasingly being used to help sort, search and analyze that information.

“AI is going to basically be able to sort through otherwise overwhelming amounts of data in ways that we just haven’t seen yet, and give police and prosecutors and the government a lot more power over us in ways that I think will be deeply uncomfortable for many of us,” said Andrew Guthrie Ferguson, a law professor at George Washington University and the author of “Your Data Will Be Used Against You: Policing in the Age of Self-Surveillance,” a book published this year.

Cris Moore, a computer scientist and professor at the Santa Fe Institute, a research and education center, said the technology is advancing faster than agencies, regulators and courts are able to fully assess its implications, raising questions about transparency, accountability and the role automated systems should play in policing decisions.

“It’s fair to say that the speed at which technologically created evidence has been adopted, and the aggression with which it’s being pushed makes it hard for the legal community to keep up,” Moore said.

State legislatures and police departments are still developing rules to govern how AI can be used in public safety settings. While some agencies have adopted internal policies or vendor-specific guidance, there is no consistent national framework, and state-level approaches remain limited and uneven.

At least two states, California and Utah, have recently enacted laws regulating the use of generative AI in police report writing, requiring disclosure when AI is used and adding safeguards around accuracy and oversight.

More broadly, more than a dozen states have passed laws regulating related technologies such as facial recognition, drone surveillance and automated license plate readers, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Emerging tech

Some of the major companies offering AI-powered tools for law enforcement include Axon, Motorola Solutions, TRULEO, Flock Safety, Clearview AI and others. Their products can search body-worn camera footage, analyze large datasets, review digital evidence and case files and identify potential suspects through facial recognition.

Some of these systems are built into centralized platforms that are able to pull and search for data from sensitive databases and police records.

Mark43, a cloud-based software company serving more than 300 public safety agencies, offers two AI-powered tools. ReportAI helps officers draft reports using information from dispatch records and body camera footage, while BriefAI summarizes case information for investigators and supervisors.

Police agencies can choose which AI features to enable and who can access them, and the system maintains audit logs of AI-assisted activity. Mark43 told Stateline that dozens of agencies are using, testing out  or evaluating the AI features.

“Our core mission is to help responders spend less time on administrative work, so that they can spend more time serving in their communities,” said Wendy Gilbert, Mark43’s senior vice president of product.

Some experts are wary of AI being used for decisions that could affect a person’s rights or freedom, such as identifying suspects, recommending enforcement actions or influencing arrests. Critics warn that AI-generated outputs can make mistakes, reflect biases in underlying data and create a risk that officers or investigators place too much weight on the technology’s recommendations.

They also argue that many AI systems operate in ways that are difficult for the public — and sometimes even officers — to fully understand.

One source of concern is the possible advent of “agentic policing.” Future technologies could integrate body-camera footage, camera networks and other data sources into a single system capable of generating investigative leads, identifying potential suspects or suggesting connections between cases.

Even if humans remain responsible for final decisions, critics say, such systems could shape investigative judgments in ways that make it more difficult to understand how conclusions were reached.

“All that data is going to be dumped into an AI model, and they’re going to query it to say who’s the most likely suspect,” said Ferguson of George Washington University. “The AI is going to be running the agentic analysis of it and come up with the answer, and then police and prosecutors have to kind of work backwards to see if it’s accurate.”

Ferguson warned that this flips the traditional investigative process on its head.

“We’ve never started with an answer and made people work backwards,” he said. “There are very real constitutional, statutory and practical risks with this new model of agentic policing.”

AI companies and some law enforcement agencies argue the technology is designed to assist officers, not replace them. They emphasize that officers are responsible for reviewing, verifying and approving AI-generated information, and that the tools are intended to reduce administrative work and help people navigate large volumes of data more efficiently.

“AI should increase accountability, not reduce it, and so we’re doing everything in our will to provide transparency, governance and human control,” said Zach Barden, the lead product manager for AI at Mark43.

In recent years, a growing number of police officers across the country have been accused of misusing AI-powered tools, including automated license plate reader systems, available through their departments to track people for personal reasons.

In April, a former Costa Mesa, California, police officer pleaded guilty to using law enforcement databases and Flock Safety cameras to monitor his wife, a mistress and several romantic rivals. Similar allegations have surfaced in Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Pennsylvania, Tennessee and Wisconsin.

Flock Safety, one of the nation’s largest providers of automated license plate readers, uses roadside cameras to capture images and video of passing vehicles, including license plates and basic vehicle details, and store them in searchable law enforcement databases.

Some communities have reconsidered their use of automated license plate reader systems, with at least 30 cities ending or canceling contracts since early 2025 amid growing concerns about surveillance and data sharing, NPR reported in February.

A Flock Safety representative was not available for an interview with Stateline before publication. In a May blog post, the company said misuse of its system is rare and noted that permanent audit logs help identify and investigate improper access.

The company said the camera network has helped agencies recover missing people, connect cases across jurisdictions and identify suspects more quickly.

Reshaping public safety operations

While some law enforcement agencies have moved forward with early deployments, others are taking a more cautious approach as they assess potential benefits and risks.

In Maryland, the Montgomery County Police Department, one of the state’s largest law enforcement agencies, is in the early stages of exploring potential uses of AI, including tools to support non-emergency call handling, translation and transcription services, and report writing to reduce administrative workload and improve efficiency.

“We want to bring technology to policing, but we need to make sure that we do it safe(ly), we do it efficiently, and that when we do do it, we’re setting the community and ourselves up for success,” said Capt. Cody Fields, the director of the police department’s media and public information division.

In Arkansas, officials are developing the Arkansas Criminal Intelligence Network, a centralized cloud platform designed to connect data across police agencies in the state and support the use of advanced AI-powered analytical tools.

In Hawaii, the Maui County Council earlier this month approved a $1.7 million expansion of high-tech policing tools, including cameras and drones supported by AI to assist with real-time monitoring and emergency response. Last year, the Honolulu Police Department announced a pilot program with Axon, which offers a generative AI feature that helps draft police reports using video and audio transcriptions from body-worn cameras.

Legal and evidentiary concerns

Police reports often play a critical role in investigations and court proceedings, and some experts warn that errors introduced by AI systems could have significant legal consequences if they go undetected.

Errors introduced by AI systems, including inaccuracies, omissions or misinterpretations of context and language, could influence how evidence is understood by investigators, prosecutors and judges.

Experts and industry leaders generally point to a few safeguards: clear disclosure when AI is used in reports, mandatory human verification of all AI-generated text, regular independent auditing of tools, and training for law enforcement and legal stakeholders on how the systems function and how to trace outputs back to raw audio, video and other source evidence.

Those recommendations align with a framework released earlier this year by the nonpartisan think tank Council on Criminal Justice, which calls for rigorous independent validation of AI systems, enforceable procurement standards, ongoing performance monitoring, and clear human oversight to ensure operators can override AI-generated outputs.

“The pace of change is really pretty dramatic, and there’s a lot of energy and churn and attention to these issues,” said Jesse Rothman, the director of the Council on Criminal Justice’s task force on artificial intelligence. “The opportunities and the risks are really serious.”

Stateline reporter Amanda Watford can be reached at awatford@stateline.org.

The Federal Communications Commission has approved new rules designed to improve the reliability of Next Generation 911 systems as states continue replacing decades-old emergency call infrastructure with internet-based networks.

The rules require companies that operate critical parts of Next Generation 911 systems, known as NG911, to adopt reliability and redundancy measures intended to reduce service disruptions. The commission also will require providers to report on their progress toward ensuring that the new systems can seamlessly transfer emergency calls and data between networks.

The FCC’s new rules come as states and local governments invest billions of dollars to modernize 911 systems, replacing legacy phone infrastructure with Internet Protocol-based networks capable of transmitting text messages, photos, video and other data to emergency dispatchers. 

Kentucky Democratic Gov. Andy Beshear announced earlier this month that the state plans to complete its statewide rollout of NG911 by 2027. 

Kentucky appears to be the latest state to announce major NG911 upgrades. Several states, including California, Illinois, New York, Ohio and Virginia have completed the transition or announced upgrades in recent years.

Federal regulators say the transition has exposed new vulnerabilities. Major multi-state 911 outages have become more common over the past decade, according to an agency news release. Many of those outages have occurred in portions of newer NG911 systems that were not covered by the commission’s existing reliability rules, which were adopted in 2013.

Last July, Pennsylvania experienced a statewide 911 outage that officials attributed to an operating system issue with its NG911 system. 

Earlier this month, communities in Arizona, Iowa, Texas and Washington state experienced 911 outages, though the causes have not yet been publicly released. During the disruptions, residents were instructed to use alternative phone numbers to reach emergency services. 

Such outages can slow dispatch times and increase the time it takes first responders to arrive on the scene.

The updated FCC regulations extend reliability requirements to entities whose networks are essential to delivering NG911 calls. The FCC said in a news release that many recent outages could have been prevented or their impacts reduced if operators had implemented stronger safeguards.

The commission also issued a proposal seeking public comment on additional requirements, including interstate interoperability testing and ways to integrate advanced video calling into NG911 systems to improve accessibility for people with disabilities and others who could benefit from visual communications during emergencies.

Stateline reporter Amanda Watford can be reached at awatford@stateline.org.

Under Wisconsin law, the state Department of Corrections is supposed to make an effort to avoid re-incarcerating people who violate minor terms of their probation, parole or deferred prosecution agreements. But advocates say DOC has not made an adequate effort to create  a system of short-term sanctions that allows people it releases to maintain contact with their families and hold onto their jobs. A rule solidifying DOC’s short-term sanctions policy, which advocates have criticized, goes into effect next month.

Act 196, passed in 2013, laid the groundwork for creating a system of short-term sanctions for people who violate the terms of their release into the community. The sanctions are supposed to provide  accountability and address bad  behavior without returning the person to prison. Roughly one-third of those entering prison each year in Wisconsin are returning because they have violated the terms of community supervision and therefore received  a “technical revocation”.

The 2013 law states that short-term sanctions should “ensure that efforts to minimize the impact on the offender’s employment… and family are made when applying sanctions,” or the sanction, whatever it may be, such as increased requirements to meet with a probation or parole officer, has the minimum impact on the person’s employment and family.

After the law passed, the Department of Corrections was charged with coming up with a framework for the new system of sanctions in the form of an administrative rule.

However, the final draft of a rule approved by Gov. Tony Evers in January, which will become part of the administrative code on July 1, states that the “impact on an offender’s employment… and family” are only “factors (that) may be considered when applying sanctions.”

The final rule provides more flexibility for probation and parole officers in the sanctions they impose. Critics say it fails to meet the law’s intent to ensure those sanctions have minimal impact on employment and family, as explicitly stated in Act 196. In particular, critics say, as long as lengthy jail holds are an approved short-term sanction, up to 90 days for very high level violations, the sanctions could have significant negative effects on both employment and family life.

A 2025 proposed rule, which was the subject of a July 2025 public hearing, contained some of the same language as Act 196, including “ensures that efforts to minimize the impact on an offender’s employment” and “family,” but the final rule removed that language.

Tom Gilbert, a WISDOM volunteer whose son has been in community supervision, has been one of the leading voices urging the DOC to implement the 2013 law. He sent a letter in 2024 to the former Secretary of the DOC, Kevin Carr, and later the current secretary, Jared Hoy, and offered input at the July 2025 public hearing. Gilbert, along with others, criticized the 2025 proposed rule for not capturing the spirit of the law and not offering “new revised policies and practices.”

He also criticized the DOC, saying it had implemented Act 196 by issuing a one-sentence rule in 2019, citing its use of evidence-based response to violations, a system of issuing appropriate sanctions based on the severity of the violation.

“In 2019, the Department quietly promulgated a one-sentence rule that it alleged implemented Act 196,” said Gilbert. “That one sentence did not even begin to address all of the features Act 196 intended to inject into the community corrections operations.” In effect, he added,  “the rule did not commit the DOC to do anything new or different.”

The Wisconsin Examiner made several requests to the DOC to explain why the final rule was written as it is, but received no response.

In a Feb. 27 letter to Hoy, Gilbert criticized the final rule for modifying language protecting ex-offenders’ contact with  employment and family, and noting that the  “short-term sanctions”  in the rule includes 90 days of incarceration.

He also points out that the rule’s stated responses for different levels of violations comes directly from the DOC’s manual on evidence-based response to violations.

“What they’ve done here is just pulled the status quo into the rule to make it sound like they’re now responding and they’ve got something new, but it’s nothing new,” Gilbert told the Examiner.

He noted that 90 days of jail incarceration, while described as a short-term sanction, has  a major impact on employment and families. He suggested if DOC needs a custodial hold, it could be considered for over a weekend, when it wouldn’t disrupt employment and family life as much.

How ‘short term sanctions’ affect people in real life

JenAnn Bauer of West Bend, who is on extended supervision, said even a weekend in jail can have a negative impact. Back in December, she was placed on a weekend hold after she reported to her PO on Wednesday the termination of her employment at a homeless shelter on Tuesday based on an allegation of using excessive physical force on a minor, which reportedly was on videotape. After spending the weekend in jail on a “hold” pending an investigation, and giving a statement to police on a Monday, she was released within hours without being charged.

“I have a little small business and this was around Christmas,” she said. “I had an order that needed to be made and packaged and labeled. I am fortunate that my son got on it for me. I don’t like to say traumatizing because I sometimes feel that that word gets overused, but for lack of a better word it was traumatizing, and I look at it like this — between five and six hours after you took my statement, you did not feel that I was an issue, that I was going to be a problem to the public, so, can I just ask, why didn’t we do that on Wednesday or Thursday? Did I really need to go sit in the county jail for the weekend?”

During the 2025 public hearing a member of MOSES, a nonpartisan interfaith group that promotes social justice and racial equality, submitted an unsigned written comment stating that the 2025 proposed rule “leaves the door open to revocation for minor violations like substance use. Individuals with minor violations are needlessly filling our jails and prisons. They do not receive treatment that could help them. They are prevented from continued employment and support for their families.”

In a report to the Legislature, the DOC provided a response to several of the written comments, saying that the department “strives to use the least restrictive alternative when responding to violations, which holds clients accountable while reducing the likelihood of future violations and criminal behavior. The DOC uses evidence-based response approaches equipping clients to be successful in the community to resolve issues at the lowest level because of the known impact jail sanctions have on employment, school and family responsibilities.”

The DOC’s Evidence-Based Response to Violation (EBRV) manual, which the DOC currently uses to determine sanctions, allows up to 90 days of jail time for those who have a “very high” violation and up to 20 days for a “medium” violation.

A 2024 report by the Robert M. La Follette School of Public Affairs, University of Wisconsin-Madison noted the number of revocations began to decline in 2021 after the EBRV had been fully implemented in 2019. However, a 2023 Legislative Audit Bureau report of the Community Correction Program revealed that of 79 individuals in community supervision interviewed, 59% said the short-term sanctions they received didn’t consider their employment needs, and 64.7 % said sanctions didn’t consider family obligations.

Sean Wilson, a senior director of organizing and partnership at Dream.Org, a national social justice advocacy group, also spoke at the 2025 public hearing and is critical of the final rule.

“While the proposed rules introduce categories of violations and outline possible responses, they still fall short of what the Legislature required under Act 196,” Wilson said.  “The law was intended to create a clear, structured system of short-term sanctions that would reduce reliance on incarceration. Instead, these guidelines present options without establishing standards. They do not ensure that the Department of Corrections errs on the side of protecting employment, supporting family stability, or reducing unnecessary incarceration. As written, the rules create alternatives to revocation but do not require their use.”

Jeremy Dings, who was in community supervision and experienced two revocations, also spoke at the 2025 public hearing. While in community supervision in 2007, he was sent back to prison because of  a violation and was still locked up when his mother passed away.

“If there were considerations about how that’s my family, it would have allowed me to stay with my loved ones and mom, who was suffering with these cancer issues,” he said

Ding acknowledges that over the years, he has witnessed how the DOC has given more consideration to employment for those in community corrections than it used to. “It used to be your problem if you lost your employment,” he said. “In fact, back in 2010, 2011, 2012, it was common practice and almost seen as this is how we get back at you, by you losing your employment.”

But Ding also agrees with Gilbert that as long as the DOC considers 90 days in jail a short-term sanction it will result in major ramification for those in community supervision.

“And so it’s obvious that a 90-day sanction is going to end somebody’s employment almost no matter what, and it would be great if those who are in probation and parole would consider someone’s employment and also their connection to their family and the responsibilities they have for their family, too,” he said.

Mark Rice, transformational justice coordinator for WISDOM, is also critical of the language in the final rule.

“The new rule still enables the DOC to utilize the response of up to 90 days in jail,” said Rice, “and then they changed the language from the original Act 196 when the original Act 196 uses the word ‘ensures’ that efforts would minimize the impact on a person’s employment and ‘ensures’ that the sanction would minimize the impact on a person’s family and employment, and they’ve changed that to me, so that it’s optional.”

Two holds, 17 days of jail, employment and family life impacted

In April and then later in May, Segdrick Leslie Farley, 46, of Eau Claire, who is on parole after serving 21 years in prison for second-degree intentional homicide, said he spent 17 cumulative days in jail while investigations were pending that later cleared him. The holds harmed his business, Brighter than Sunshine, he said, interrupted his education and disrupted his family life. He questions why other measures couldn’t have been taken to address the allegations instead of disrupting his life.

Farley, a college graduate who is pursuing graduate school, said he was put on a seven-day hold in April based on what he describes as a baseless allegation that he threatened another person. 

“My mental health was declining,” he said about his hold. “I was just worried, you know, worrying about my kids. I couldn’t talk to my kids because I didn’t want them to know that I was in jail.”

He said on the sixth day in jail his PO came to talk to him. Farley said he was angry because he had missed an opportunity to participate in summer research and missed an opportunity to secure educational funding.

“What I said to my agent at the time is just, ‘Did you really need to lock me up like, corrupt my life, interrupt my life, and cause all of this, when you could have simply just asked me the question?’”

And then on May 27, he was placed on hold again, this time for 10 days, after he made a report to police of a man trespassing on his property. The man arrested claimed Farley had waved a firearm, which, as a felon, Farley is not allowed to possess.

Farley was again put in a hold while his residence was searched. He said it could have been resolved by asking him for his key to search his house, even if he was put in hold for a day, instead of for 10 days and his landlord having to open his residence.

“It was embarrassing because my landlord had to come down and I might lose my place. He might think I’m some type of thug,” he said.  “Nothing was found because I don’t have firearms, I don’t do things like that,” and added, “I was fortunate enough to have somebody pay my rent for me. I was fortunate enough to have someone pay them (the employees), but my kids had to go without me. I lost income. I lost time that I should have spent preparing for my summer research in school, which is going to get me into graduate school and law school. I was supposed to be studying for the LSAT. I can’t take those days back. Even when I come home, there’s no apology that restores any of that.”

A federal judge has denied a request by former Milwaukee judge Hannah Dugan to either overturn her December conviction for obstructing an immigration proceeding. In a 32-page decision filed Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman disagreed with Dugan’s attorneys that a recent appeals court decision that immigration enforcement actions are not “proceedings” means  her conviction should be overturned. 

In early 2025, Dugan was in court when she learned of that plain-clothes immigration agents were in the hall outside her courtroom, waiting to arrest Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, who was appearing for a routine hearing, for being in the country illegally. How to handle immigration enforcement had been a top concern among local judges, following a string of arrests by federal agents in and around the Milwaukee County Courthouse. Neither the county sheriff nor the Milwaukee Police Department participate in immigration enforcement and detention. 

Dugan confronted the agents in her judge’s robes, and directed them to check in with the chief judge. When most of the arrest team went to the office, Dugan went back into her courtroom and called Flores-Ruiz, set a new court date, and then led  him and his attorney out of the courtroom through a non-public hallway. Flores-Ruiz rode down in an elevator with one of the federal agents and was arrested outside after a brief foot pursuit. Dugan was later charged with obstructing agents and concealing Flores-Ruiz from them.

The appeals court decision centered around United States v. Hernandez, involving a man who’d been charged with obstruction after escaping immigration custody. In that case, the defendant argued that executing his removal order was not part of the proceeding, which ended once the final removal order was issued. When Dugan went to trial, the Hernandez case was still on appeal. Adelman instructed Dugan’s jury that “‘pending proceeding’ simply means any process taking place in the manner and form prescribed for conducting business by or before a department or government agency, including all steps and stages in such an action from its inception to its conclusion.” Federal agents testified that there are a number of steps in an immigration proceeding, beginning before an arrest and continuing through removal.

When Adelman approved the jury instructions, which were recommended by prosecutors, he relied on United States v. Hernandez. Adelman said that the instructions proposed by the defense team defined “proceeding” too narrowly. “In the present case, the government alleged that defendant obstructed an arrest (step eight),” Adelman wrote in his decision denying Dugan acquittal or a re-trial. Adelman also wrote that motions for reconsideration serve the limited function of correcting errors of law or fact, or to present newly discovered evidence. “Motions for reconsideration are not to be granted lightly,” Adelman wrote. 

Dugan’s attorneys argued that Adelman originally relied on the Hernandez case in deciding that “proceeding” was broad enough to include obstructing immigration agents from executing an administrative warrant. Now that an appeals court reversed the decision in Hernandez and ruled that  immigration enforcement is not a “pending proceeding” as presented to Dugan’s jury, they said Adelman should reconsider his own decision and grant an acquittal. 

Prosecutors countered that the Hernandez ruling “is neither binding nor persuasive, and thus fails to satisfy the ‘heavy burden required for consideration,’” according to Adelman’s summary of the arguments. 

“The problem for the defense is that this case did not involve some random encounter on the street,” Adelman wrote. “It was a targeted operation, conducted pursuant to agency procedures, including the issuance of an arrest warrant for a specific person.” Adelman also wrote that classifying immigration enforcement as “mere police activity” is inappropriate, as “the FBI, ICE can issue its own warrants and adjudicate and effectuate a removal…without the involvement of a court.”

For those reasons, Adelman ruled that the burden for reconsideration in Dugan’s case had not been met. A new court date for Dugan’s sentencing or other proceedings was not yet available Tuesday in online court records.