The Milwaukee Police Department has explicitly banned officers from using masks or other facial coverings to hide their identities, Milwaukee Common Council members announced on Monday. 

“We met with the police chief, delivered the message of what our constituents were demanding, and he acted. This is about responsiveness, accountability and trust,” Alderperson JoCasta Zamarripa said in a statement that quoted four members of the council, including council president José Pérez.

The statement said the new policy is aligned with the council’s “ICE Out” public safety plan. 

Last month, officials announced a package of local ordinance proposals that aim to prepare the city for a possible surge in Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations. The package included a requirement for all ICE agents to be unmasked when interacting with the public in Milwaukee. 

City ordinances could be struck down in court, but people in Milwaukee want to see their local government try to protect against abuses by the federal government, Milwaukee Ald. Alex Brower said.

The department updated the uniform requirements in its standard operating procedure, effective Monday. 

The Milwaukee Police Department procedure states that facial coverings and masks are allowed in certain circumstances. These include but are not limited to the following: protection to prevent exposure to hazardous materials, protection on assignments to prevent the spread of diseases or viruses and protection from cold or extreme weather during assignments that require a staff member to be outdoors for periods of time. 

“Note: Facial coverings and masks shall not be used for the purpose of concealing identity,” the procedure states. 

In a statement to the Examiner, the police department expressed gratitude to elected officials, the Milwaukee Police Association and the Milwaukee Police Supervisors Organization, who worked in collaboration to make the modification to the operating procedure, the unsigned statement said, adding, “We are always better together.”

Dennis Simmons didn’t expect that a regular visit to his probation officer would end in his arrest, and the prospect of being sent to prison. After a life spent in and out of the criminal justice system, Simmons was employed and trying to avoid trouble. “When I came in they arrested me and told me that I was being charged with robbery, battery, and carjacking,” the 28-year-old told Wisconsin Examiner, recalling that day in April 2025. “The detectives never came and questioned me to ask nothing, they just ended up charging me with it.”

Simmons learned that he was being accused of assaulting a man and stealing his car. But his attempts to explain that he had proof that the accusations were false fell on deaf ears, Simmons said. Instead, his probation agent planned on moving forward with revoking  Simmons’ release anyway. 

Had that happened, Simmons would have been among the over 8,100 people sent back to prison in 2025, according to Wisconsin Department of Corrections (DOC) data. When you’re one of the over 64,000 Wisconsinites who are on probation or parole in Wisconsin, an unproven accusation is one of numerous things that can send you back to prison. Probation and parole agents wield immense power over their clients’ futures. 

Simmons told his agent, Laquisha Booker, that his accuser was the subject of a no-contact order with his mother due to a domestic violence case. The accusation against Simmons was false, he told her,   because there was video showing the man violating that no-contact order by arriving at his mother’s home in the very car Simmons’ had been accused of stealing, and attempting to break down the door. Simmons’ uncle, he said, fought the man off. 

“It don’t show me on the camera at all,” Simmons told the Wisconsin Examiner. Booker told the family to send her the footage, but then “acted like she never got the video,” said Simmons. “Well, she kept pushing forward with revocation the whole time. My uncle came in and gave her a statement, let her know what happened, that he was the one that got into the fight with him. And mom sent the video. Mom gave a statement and let them know what happened. My grandma gave a statement. And she still pushed forward with revocation.” 

Fighting against the stream of incarceration

Facing over five years imprisonment, Simmons was shocked and confused by Booker’s push to send him back. “How can you still go through with it?” He asked. “You got evidence showing that it ain’t true. And she, like, ‘Well, I’m pushing forward with revocation.” Simmons wanted to fight the revocation, but knew that it wouldn’t be easy to beat. For months he sat in the Milwaukee Secure Detention Facility, a facility which held 637 people while Simmons was there in April 2025 despite only being designed to hold 418.  

Simmons found the Milwaukee Secure Detention Facility  to be in a dire state. “They be short staff a lot, you know, so we be pretty much in the room all day,” Simmons told the Examiner. He recalled that people were let out of their rooms twice a day for a little  over an hour. 

“It’s kind of rough in there,” said Simmons. “So we pretty much in the room all day. Come out for a little bit. When you come out, you work out, get in the shower, and then try to make your phone calls, try to get everything did that you got to get did. Then you go back in the room. So it’s pretty much a stressful environment just being in there. Because you be in the room all day thinking, especially if you in there for something that you didn’t do and then you nervous. Like, I was actually kind of scared even though I didn’t do anything, like, they have my back against the wall so I’m like ‘five years, nine months, I got to fight it.’ But they like, ‘If  you lose you could get the whole seven years. And 90% of the people lose here.’ So I’m like, should I take a deal for something that I didn’t do?”

The people Simmons was housed with thought that would be his only option. “Everybody that been there for a while said that’s how it works,” Simmons told the Examiner. “It was stressful.” 

Prior to his final revocation hearing in September 2025, attorney May Lee — of the Lee Law Firm — intervened on Simmons’ behalf. In emails Lee shared with the Examiner, Booker  claimed that the videos sent by Simmons’ mother couldn’t be opened. “I emailed her back and told her to forward the videos to my supervisor,” Booker emailed Lee. “She never did. I won’t be using the videos in the rev hearing.” 

Lee shot back that Dennis’ mother had sent the videos “to your agency a total of three times, including once to your supervisor. She was unaware that you or your supervisor were unable to open the files and she is now locked out of her iCloud account, requiring Apple’s assistance to access those videos again.” Lee continued preparing for the revocation hearing, asking Booker to share the videos with her so she could try to open them, and to provide a supervisor’s contact information.

During the revocation hearing, Simmons’ uncle testified that his nephew was innocent and it was  he who had engaged in the fight leading to the accusation of assault. The uncle also testified to having already given Booker a statement that exonerated Simmons. Booker admitted during the hearing that she had lost the uncle’s statement, something which Lee said contradicted what the probation agent had told her in the days leading up to the hearing. According to a DOC human resources bureau review of Booker’s conduct, Lee had been told by Booker that the uncle never came to give a statement. 

After the Sept. 10 hearing, Lee emailed Booker to demand that the allegations against Simmons be dismissed given what came out during the hearing. Lee also noted that Booker’s supervisor was able to access the videos which Booker claimed didn’t work.  “The information you know to be true does not support the allegations against Dennis,” Lee emailed Booker. “I am hopeful you will consider doing the right thing here. I look forward to hearing from you.” 

The next day Booker responded that after talking with her supervisor, “the department is not going to withdraw the allegations against Mr. Simmons and will continue with the revocation hearing.” Emails obtained by Wisconsin Examiner show Booker’s supervisor asked her about the conflict over the uncle’s statement. Booker said that Lee was misunderstanding what she said, “I told her I reached out to [the uncle], we spoke but he never came in to give a statement. So I can see how she’s thinking I said he never gave a statement at all.” 

Later that day, Lee again asked Booker for her supervisor’s contact information. Otherwise, she said, she’d have to go above their heads to a DOC regional chief “and outline the blatant misrepresentations” made about Simmons. “We are expected to uphold justice, and I provided an opportunity to rectify this situation,” Lee emailed Booker. “As you have chosen not to, I have no other option but to escalate this matter.” Lee then notified DOC Regional Chief Niel Thoreson about her concerns. 

By Sept. 15, Thoreson and Lee were emailing about finally releasing Simmons. Although another agent was supposed to be assigned to Simmons, when he was released it was Booker he met with to review the rules of his conditional release. “It is unacceptable that she was allowed to meet with him after she attempted to use her own lie to strip away another five years of his life to lock him up as if his human life holds no value,” Lee emailed Thoreson on Sept. 22. “This was egregious due to the already six months he spent in custody because of those allegations.” Lee added,  “what is going on over there??” 

The tables turned 

Simmons recalled his last interaction with Booker. “When I came to the office the day I was released, I was actually excited, at the very least I was happy, and then I seen her,” said Simmons, adding that Booker told him that this wouldn’t have happened if she’d received the videos and statement from his uncle, essentially reverting to her original claims. “I was like yeah, this is crazy,” said Simmons. 

Booker was later interviewed by the DOC human resources department. She was  new to her job,  having started in January 2025. During her HR  interview, Booker was asked whether she received a statement from Simmons’ uncle. “Yes sir,” she began. “Well let me rephrase that, I didn’t have to. [The uncle] reached out to me and said he wanted to make a statement.” Booker said that he came to the office and that she gave him paper to write the statement. “I did not sit there and take his statement personally, but I did get a statement from him that he turned in to the front desk.” 

She went on to say, “I am being completely honest. From the time that reception told me that the statement is ready to pick up, I don’t remember if I went to get the statement from him or not or if I grabbed it and misplaced it sometime after that.” Booker said that she couldn’t recall whether she actually read the statement, or even if she’d picked the statement up from the desk. The statement wasn’t included in the packet prepared for Simmons’ revocation hearing because according to Booker, she didn’t have it. 

Booker denied telling Lee that she never took a statement from the uncle, but said that she admitted in court to having lost his statement. Booker couldn’t remember at what point she first realized she’d lost it, however. When asked during the human resources interview whether she ever told attorney Lee about the uncle’s statement Booker said, “Yes…I can’t recall. I have had many conversations with her at that time.” Booker said that her supervisor had told her that “we are proceeding with rev no matter what.”  

She added that, “I realize I made a mistake and that I tried to correct that violation and I understand that I messed up. No matter what my [supervisor] was proceeding with rev and I am a new agent and I talked to her to get alternatives because I knew mom and grandma were testifying and I tried to do other things. That was my first revocation hearing and I don’t even know how revocations go and I don’t have any rapport with the client because he was arrested before I even knew him…I am a new agent and I don’t have any information on that process or how it went.” 

The DOC found that Booker had potentially violated rules regarding falsifying records, insubordination, and negligence. The report asserts that Booker was aware of the statement clearing Simmons of wrongdoing, but that she didn’t tell her supervisor, and declined Lee’s attempts to provide her with another written statement. The HR report adds that Booker “knowingly provided false information” to Lee regarding her ability to access video footage sent by Simmons’ mother, and the uncle’s statement. 

A DOC spokesperson said that Booker resigned in November during her disciplinary investigation. For the first seven weeks of her time at DOC, Booker would have participated in the DOC’s basic training for agents, which all agents must graduate before working with clients. The training is intended to provide agents with baseline and foundational skills to help agents navigate tasks, make decisions, and understand the DOC’s expectations. 

Crushed hopes and an uncertain future 

The entire ordeal was a major blow to Simmons’ ability to settle back into civilian life after serving a seven-year sentence. “You’re not even giving me a chance,” said Simmons, “and I’m showing you what’s going on.” 

Simmons told the Examiner that he’s tired of the revolving door to prison in his life. “I had a mindset of I’m tired of going to jail, I don’t want to be in prison no more,” Simmons told the Examiner. “I’ve been doing this my whole life, I’m going to try something different. Because the way I’ve been doing it keep getting me in trouble, it’s not working. So I want to try a way to stay up out. So when I get out and I decide that I’m not doing nothing that can put me back in prison, and try to stay away from it, and then I get locked up for something I didn’t do, it just make me feel like, ‘Man like, it’s hopeless. Should I just be back in the streets?” 

Simmons said the experience “crushed all the hope I had for even trying to do something the right way. Like…I ain’t understand it.” He told the Examiner that it’s important not to judge people solely based on what they did in the past. “That’s not who they are, that’s who they was,” said Simmons, recalling that he started getting into trouble when he was 13 years old. “I’ve been in and out since I was a kid,” he said. 

Growing up, Simmons said he didn’t have many positive role models around. “So basically if you grow up around people, if your whole family is involved in certain things and they teach you that the right thing to do is live the street life — be in the streets, sell drugs, do whatever in the streets — that’s what you’re going to grow up believing is the right thing to do,” he explained. “Now a lot of my family…They breaking the cycle of being in and out of prison. My dad started his own business. My auntie started her own business. Everybody is breaking the cycle from getting in trouble and going back to jail.” 

It took Simmons until his last prison sentence to decide he had to break the cycle. Before the experience with Booker, Simmons was working with his uncle and staying away from old friends and bad influences. But when he spoke to the Examiner, Simmons was being held at Milwaukee’s Community Reintegration Center, after being charged with firearms-related offenses in December for which he has yet to be convicted, and remains presumed innocent until proven guilty. If he beats this new case, Simmons hopes to transfer his probation to Texas where he has family, and leave Milwaukee behind. The DOC has recommended that his supervision be revoked. 

“I made some mistakes, I did some things in the past, made some bad decisions, and that made me who I am today,” said Simmons. “Everything I went through made me want to do better and be better.”

Three new county sheriff’s offices have signed agreements with Immigration and Customs Enforcement that allow deputies to enforce federal immigration law. 

The sheriffs of Dunn, Green Lake and Walworth counties have signed the agreements under ICE’s 287(g) program. ICE records show the Dunn County agreement was signed Feb. 10 while the other two are still pending. All three counties have signed on to the program under the warrant service officer model, which allows county sheriff’s deputies to arrest people targeted by ICE with administrative warrants. 

With the three new agreements, 19 of Wisconsin’s 72 counties have joined the 287(g) program. Most of the counties have joined the program under the warrant service model while Kenosha and Marathon counties have joined under the jail enforcement model — which allows departments to notify ICE of undocumented immigrants detained in county jails. Kewaunee, Sauk and Waukesha counties have signed up under both models. 

Dodge County does not have a 287(g) agreement with ICE but for years has had a contract to hold federal detainees in its county jail, which includes people arrested by ICE. 

Immigrants’ rights and civil rights groups have criticized the 287(g) agreements, arguing that law enforcement openly stating its support for ICE and its often aggressive tactics discourages immigrants of all legal statuses from reporting crimes as victims or coming forward as witnesses. 

“287(g) agreements do not make anyone safer — they stoke fear and erode trust, deter residents from reporting crime, and divert local resources away from addressing real public safety concerns and the needs of the community,” the ACLU of Wisconsin said in a statement in January after the Kenosha and Sauk county sheriffs signed their agreements.

A Milwaukee police officer has been accused of abusing his access to the department’s Flock camera network, according to a criminal complaint filed by the Milwaukee district attorney’s office Tuesday. Josue Ayala is charged with one count of misdemeanor misconduct in public for allegedly using MPD’s Flock network to determine the locations of two people, one of whom was in a romantic relationship with Ayala. 

If convicted, Ayala could face up to nine months in prison and up to $10,000 in fines. The criminal complaint states that a negotiation is underway, “a condition of which requires Josue Ayala to resign his position as a police officer” for MPD. 

Flock cameras continuously photograph and identify vehicles with AI-powered Automatic License Plate Reader (ALPR) technology, and then store that data in a network which can be searched by law enforcement agencies across the country. Distributed by the multi-billion dollar company Flock Safety, the cameras have been criticized for facilitating mass surveillance of citizens using a system that can be easily abused or misused by law enforcement. 

According to the criminal complaint, one of the alleged victims used a website to determine that Ayala had conducted numerous searches of that person’s license plate. “VICTIM ONE believed that Officer Ayala ran VICTIM ONE’S license plate over 100 times,” the complaint states. Detectives reviewed audit data from MPD’s Flock network showing that one victim had been searched by Ayala 55 times while the other victim had been searched 124 times over the same time period. 

Detectives learned that both victims used to be in a relationship together but had since broken up. After the relationship ended, one of the victims began to date Ayala. The investigation revealed that Ayala had used Flock while dating the victim.

The complaint states that Ayala was on duty when he conducted the searches. When officers use Flock, they need to put in a reason for the search. Ayala used “investigation” in order to conduct the unlawful searches. Last year, an analysis by the Wisconsin Examiner found that “investigation” was the most common search term Wisconsin law enforcement agencies used to access Flock during the first five months of 2025. Other agencies used even more vague search terms, including  just a dot. Agencies disagreed about whether officers should be held accountable for using vague terms. 

In December 2023, MPD leadership issued a memorandum warning that staff who used Flock for reasons unrelated to law enforcement could face discipline. MPD’s policy on ALPR technology and Flock also states that the system should only be used for “bona fide law enforcement purposes.” 

Ayala had been assigned to the MPD’s District 2 station on Lincoln Avenue, but is now on full suspension. The resignation agreement is pending with the Milwaukee County District Attorney’s Office, a police department press release states. 

Police Chief Jeffrey Norman said in a statement, “I am extremely disappointed to learn about the incident and expect all members, sworn and civilian, to demonstrate the highest ethical standards in the performance of their duties.” 

“If a member violates the code of conduct, they will be held accountable,” Norman added.  “… I want to remind the public that everyone is afforded the right of due process under the law, and as such, are innocent until proven guilty.” Norman also directed his department to create additional auditing mechanisms, although the department’s press release does not explain what exactly those mechanisms are. 

Ayala’s alleged use of surveillance technology for personal reasons is not an anomaly. In Menasha, an officer is facing felony misconduct in public office charges for using Flock to track a person’s vehicle while he was off duty. In Kenosha County, a sheriff’s deputy is also accused of using Flock and a squad car tracking system called Polaris to track one of his co-workers. The Examiner has filed records requests to obtain the internal investigation regarding the Kenosha sheriff’s deputy. 

The chief of the Greenfield Police Department is also facing felony misconduct in public office charges for installing a department-owned pole camera system on his property for personal reasons, and then deleting texts which may have been related to the investigation of the camera’s use. WTMJ reported that the chief captured himself deleting the messages using a body camera he’d worn to document a meeting where he was being offered the chance to retire. 

Residents in Milwaukee have been increasingly critical about the use of Flock cameras and facial recognition technology by both the police department and sheriff’s office. After a Fire and Police Commission meeting earlier this month related to facial recognition, where dozens of residents denounced the use of surveillance technologies, Norman announced that MPD would ban facial recognition for its staff. Locals have called for more oversight and transparency around police surveillance technology in the city.

The Milwaukee Police Association (MPD’s union) denounced Norman’s decision to restrict facial recognition. After the charges were announced against Ayala, the union posted on Facebook that he is innocent until proven guilty, that it respects “the integrity of that process,” and clarified that Ayala is not related to the union’s president Alex Ayala. 

Jon McCray Jones, policy analyst for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Wisconsin, said in a statement that these latest accusations of Flock misuse “exemplify just how easily Flock cameras can be turned against the very people the technology purports to protect.”

McCray Jones criticized the use of vague terms to search Flock’s network, referencing reporting from the Examiner. “These meaningless, one-word descriptions make it impossible to know what the technology is being used for or whether it’s justified,” he said. McCray Jones called for greater public reporting and oversight of surveillance technologies in Milwaukee.

This story has been updated with comment from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Wisconsin.

“This is in response to the recent arrests of four local community members, which have impacted not only multiple families but also many others throughout the surrounding region. We are demanding details about the nature of the advance notice of federal officers used to notify the Eau Claire (County) Sheriff’s Department, as well as body cam footage from the officers on the scene,” said Gerardo Licon, a member of the advocacy group El Centro de Conexion de Chippewa Valley.

Licon was speaking to a group of roughly 100 at an ICE Out Now! demonstration near the Altoona City Police Department on Saturday afternoon, Feb. 21.

The protest, organized by area Chippewa Valley advocacy groups, was responding  to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents detaining four people on Tuesday, Feb. 17.

The coalition is questioning the level of cooperation between local law enforcement, including the Eau Claire County Sheriff’s Department and the city of Altoona Police Department, with ICE, as well as the narrative offered by Eau Claire County Sheriff Dave Riewestahl about what transpired on Feb.17

Riewestahl said in a press release late Feb. 17 that his office was contacted by ICE agents who said they would be at a construction site in the city of Altoona, near the city of Eau Claire, to arrest a suspect who had allegedly assaulted a law enforcement officer.

Riewestahl later told the Examiner the construction site was off 9 Mile Creek Road, just over a quarter mile from the Altoona Elementary School.

The Examiner heard concerns expressed by local residents that the enforcement action occurred in the afternoon, near dismissal time at the school, but in a voicemail to the Examiner, Altoona School Superintendent Dr. Heidi Elopaulos said the school district had heard no concerns.

“The law enforcement activity that occurred in our community on Feb. 17 had no involvement with and no impact on the School District of Altoona,” she said.

After ICE agents attempted to arrest the suspect, Riewestahl said, four individuals fled the construction site, and one was apprehended.

The sheriff said three who fled the scene entered a residence in the town of Washington, confronted a homeowner, then went into the garage and barricaded themselves inside. The homeowner then locked the door between the house and the garage.

Riewestahl said his office was called to address a criminal trespass to a dwelling, and then county deputies requested assistance from  Altoona police.

Upon the request of the homeowner, the sheriff said, his officers entered the home and attempted to gain voluntary compliance with the three individuals in the garage, but when verbal requests failed, the officers used pepperballs, and the three surrendered.

None of the three were charged with criminal trespass, said the sheriff, because the homeowner didn’t want to press charges.

The three individuals were subsequently turned over to ICE agents.

“In talking with ICE, they said they had the authority to take them in custody for immigration activity, so we turned them over to immigration and immigration took all four of those individuals,” Riewestahl told the Examiner.

In January, after ICE agents were spotted  at the Eau Claire County Courthouse, Riewestahl told local media that his department’s policy manual for field services (patrol) and security services (jail) regarding immigration status directs patrol officers not to detain anyone accused of a “civil  violation of federal immigration laws or related civil warrants,” and that the jail is only allowed to hold individuals who have “been charged with a federal crime,” or have been issued “a warrant, affidavit of probable cause or removal order.”

Several at the demonstration said that earlier in the year, both the sheriff’s department and the Altoona Police Department had said they would not cooperate with ICE.

It is not clear if there was any level of cooperation between the two local law enforcement agencies and ICE other than possibly the sheriff allowing ICE to take the three whom local officers had removed from the garage.

Mireya Sigala, another advocate with El Centro, introduced a man she said was the brother of one of the three. The man was not identified, and he spoke in Spanish, which was translated by Licon.

“Thank you so much for the support you’re giving us, the immigrants,” he said. “Supposedly, they’re looking for criminals, but the criminals aren’t working, and our mistake was to go out and work.”

The man said his brother had never committed a crime and did not  owe anyone money.

“I felt terrible when he called and told me, ‘ICE is here, help me,’” he said. “I felt like trash. I felt like impotent that I couldn’t help him. I didn’t know what to do. There was a woman who gave him refuge in the garage, and I really appreciate that. To my understanding, after that they forcefully took them out of there.”

The brother’s version of events of a woman offering “refuge” appears to contradict the sheriff’s version that the homeowner complained of the three people trespassing  in the Town of Washington home.

Licon also said the advocates are challenging the account offered in the Feb. 17 press release and demanded that “a public statement from both Eau Claire sheriff’s office and Altoona Police Department correcting false statements and the narrative that was published on the news stories after the event, accountability and apology for working with ICE after explicitly stating they wouldn’t do that.”

The Examiner reached out to Sheriff Riewestahl for a response.

The organizers of the event, Licon said, are stressing a clear message to local law enforcement that it “exists to serve and protect the communities in which they operate.”

“They (organizers) argue the cooperation with federal immigration officers erodes trust, discourages residents from reporting crimes, and undermines public safety for everyone,” said Licon. “Our message is simple: law enforcement should be focused on protecting local community members. They work for us, not ICE.”

He added, “Public safety depends on trust, and that trust is compromised when local public safety agencies are seen to be actively assisting federal immigration enforcement officers. Given the lack of dignity and the dehumanization that immigration officers and federal agencies have demonstrated across the country toward law-abiding community members, we cannot allow these unaccountable and undertrained federal agents anywhere near our community.”

Licon also said the advocates have a list of three other demands:

* ICE and immigration officers leave Eau Claire County.

* Release any person arrested without a corresponding legal warrant signed by a judge, and a proof of a warrant used for arrest.

* That both the city police and county sheriff respond to records requests, specifically how agencies were notified by ICE, decisions made to collaborate with ICE, and body camera footage.

None of the four detained Feb. 17 were sent to the Eau Claire County Jail. The man who identified himself as the  brother of one of the three taken Feb. 17 said his brother had been taken to “Bloomington,” presumably Bloomington, Minnesota, where federal immigration offices are located.

Denise Bustanante, another advocate, said if the sheriff’s office doesn’t know who ICE was originally intending to arrest, nor the immigration status of those detained on Feb. 17, then it is possible that ICE had detained U.S. citizens.

“For all we know, those four people could be U.S. citizens in ICE detention right now,” she said.

Dang Yang, a resident for 22 years whose parents came as refugees from Laos to the U.S.  in 1979, recounted how a local Hmong man was detained by ICE for over an hour even though the man is a legal citizen.

“On Monday, Jan. 5, a local Hmong man from our community was detained at his place of employment by ICE in Eau Claire,” said Yang. “He was handcuffed; he was questioned, and even after presenting his valid Wisconsin driver’s license to ICE agents, they spent nearly an hour interrogating him. They asked him about his citizenship over and over again. In addition to that, they also attempted to interrogate him about what he knew regarding the whereabouts of any undocumented Hmong community members in the area. He was finally released after the hour-long interrogation. But the arrest is never the point. The arrest is never the point. Because it’s the impact of the intimidation and the impact of the harassment that results in people hiding away, people afraid to go to the grocery store. People are afraid to talk to their neighbors, afraid to speak up when something is wrong, afraid to be seen and deathly afraid to be heard.”

Yang said his parents told him that back in Southeast Asia, they didn’t talk to the police because of fear of intimidation, and now he sees the same type of intimidation being used by ICE.

“Growing up, they would tell me how lucky we were to have police that were relatively helpful, to have a local government that was relatively competent compared to what they had known in their home country,” said Yang, “But today, the echoes of the past return, and we still see numerous examples of federal law enforcement being just as corrupt, just as unaccountable and just as problematic with their interactions, because they could lead to people being disappeared.This is not the exception of what we have seen over the last year. This is the rule. This is why we’re angry when we see law enforcement side by side with ICE. The association itself, without any details, erodes the trust that my parents so desperately sought when they left their homes in Southeast Asia. But me, today, I cannot deny that I’m afraid, but despite that, I refuse to hide away.”

State Rep.  Christian Phelps (D-Eau Claire) expressed  his support for the local immigrant community saying, “Nobody in the Chippewa Valley ever has to prove their humanity in order to deserve to be safe in our community.”

He added, “I just want to thank you all for the courage that you are demonstrating, leaning into our long and storied history here of true working-class solidarity. Courage is contagious when you demonstrate it by standing up for all of our neighbors, including our immigrant neighbors. You are sharing that courage with the people around you, and while we have that long history of working-class solidarity, ICE is not some time-honored institution with this storied history in the Chippewa Valley. It is less than 30 years old, and it serves no purpose other than to be the sharp and violent edge of Trump’s fascism and authoritarianism, and so I am only here to say, I see you, I hear you, I appreciate you. I encourage you to continue.”

This story was updated at 10:04 a.m. on Monday, Feb. 23.

An effort to limit the Milwaukee Common Council’s ability to shape police and fire department policy passed an Assembly vote Thursday, in the form of an amendment to a completely unrelated bill. If the measure becomes law, the council would need a unanimous vote before suspending or modifying police or fire department policy. 

The amendment was offered by Rep. Bob Donovan (R-Greenfield) on Thursday, as lawmakers undertook a lengthy Assembly floor session voting on legislation. Although the amendment falls in line with past Republican moves to weaken the control local government has over law enforcement, it was attached to a bill completely unrelated to that issue. 

Donovan’s amendment was attached to a Republican bill framed as granting parents and guardians more access to medical records of minor children. The bill, among other things, would eliminate the ability for children who are at least 14 years old to contest release of their mental health records and the results of HIV testing to their parents or guardians. 

Nothing about the bill Donovan attached his amendment to involves common councils setting policy for police and fire departments. Yet this sort of maneuver was not unheard of in the lead up to the Assembly floor vote on Thursday. Republican lawmakers also amended a bill regarding hunting sandhill cranes to include provisions covering wake boat regulations. Another bill designed to provide additional court support statewide was amended to selectively remove additional public defenders from Milwaukee County. 

It’s also not the first time Republicans worked to disrupt the ability of officials in Milwaukee to oversee the Milwaukee Police Department (MPD). In 2023, after failing to pass bills backed by the Milwaukee Police Association aimed at preventing the city from ever reducing its police force and removing, forcing Milwaukee Public Schools to re-adopt school resource officers, and eliminating the policy-setting power over MPD that the Fire and Police Commission (FPC) had enjoyed for decades, Republican leaders attached those same provisions to a shared revenue deal which Milwaukee County needed in order to avoid a fiscal catastrophe.

Since the passage of the deal, FPC members and local activists alike have decried the attack on the FPC’s ability to oversee the police department. In lieu of setting policy, the FPC is able to make policy recommendations to the common council, an alternative avenue Donovan’s amendment is tailored to close.

Although the amended bill passed the Assembly, it now needs to pass in the Senate, and then to the governor’s desk. It’s unclear if the bill will gain Senate support, where several organizations have lobbied against it.

On Friday, lawmakers in the Wisconsin Assembly voted in favor of a bill seeking Medicaid coverage for people in Wisconsin prisons and jails. Supporters hope it will help recently incarcerated people avoid addiction and overdoses. 

Rep. Shelia Stubbs (D-Madison) said her experience working for the Wisconsin Department of Corrections has given her firsthand knowledge about the impact AB 604 will have. She said it will improve access to treatment and case management and ease the financial burden on justice-involved Wisconsinites. 

The bill would give incarcerated people a greater chance of maintaining sobriety and preventing overdose after release from prison, Stubbs said. After a Minnesota study about the causes of death of recently incarcerated people, researcher Tyler Winkelman said that “substance use is clearly the main driver of death after release from both jail and prison.”

Medicaid is prohibited from paying for services provided during incarceration, barring some exceptions involving inpatient services or an eligible juvenile under 21 years old. The National Association of Counties published a toolkit critical of the “inmate exclusion policy,” arguing in part that it unfairly revokes federal health benefits from people who are being detained prior to trial and have not been found guilty.  

The bill would pursue a path offered by the federal government that allows for a partial waiver of the policy. 

The proposal directs the Department of Health Services to request a waiver to conduct a demonstration project; 19 states have approved waivers and nine states including Washington D.C. have pending waivers, as of November 21. 

A waiver would allow for prerelease health care coverage under the Medical Assistance program, which provides health services to people with limited finances, for up to 90 days before release of an eligible incarcerated person. Coverage would be provided for case management services, medication-assisted treatment for all types of substance use disorders and a 30-day supply of prescription medications. 

The bill garnered support from lawmakers from both parties and from WISDOM and EX-Incarcerated People Organizing, groups that advocate for incarcerated people. 

The Assembly’s vote to seek the coverage for incarcerated people comes on the heels of its vote to accept a federal expansion of Medicaid coverage for women for one year after they give birth. 

For the waiver, if the state seeks federal Medicaid coverage for services that are currently funded with state or local dollars, the state has to reinvest any savings in state or local funds. Savings would be invested in programs to increase access to or improve the quality of health care for incarcerated people. 

In the Department of Corrections fiscal estimate, the DOC said that in fiscal year 2025, the agency spent $500,000 on the 30-day medication supply dispensed for incarcerated people pre-release, $300,000 on pre-release medication assisted treatment medications and $3.9 million on the Opening Avenues to Reentry Success (OARS) program. The OARS program supports the transition from prison to the community of incarcerated people living with a severe and persistent mental illness who are at medium-to-high risk of reoffending. 

The agency estimated it may have over $750,000 in potential cost savings if the waiver is approved and implemented. 

Because not all incarcerated people will qualify, the estimate assumes that half of the medication supply and medication assisted treatment medications costs will be reimbursed, as well as 10% of the OARS program costs. There may be other costs DOC can have reimbursed.

AB 604 would require the Department of Health Services to submit the waiver request no later than Jan. 1, 2027. 

The bill now goes to the state Senate. Supporters of the bill include the Wisconsin Medical Society, the National Alliance on Mental Illness Wisconsin, the Medical College of Wisconsin and the Wisconsin Counties Association. 

If your local court is struggling with a backlog of cases then help is on the way — except for people living in Milwaukee County. Although initially included in a Republican effort to fund more legal staff statewide, Milwaukee was largely removed from a bill authorizing additional circuit court and criminal justice system positions, in a move both Democratic and Republican lawmakers have said was purely political. 

On Thursday, lawmakers voted to pass the Assembly version of that bill (AB 514) during an Assembly floor session. Under its original form — authored by Sen. Eric Wimberger (R-Gillett) and Rep. David Steffens (R-Howard) — the bill would have provided Milwaukee County with funding for four assistant district attorney positions, four assistant state public defender positions, and six support staff positions for the Public Defender’s Office by 2028. 

That aid is sorely needed in Milwaukee, where courts are burdened by thousands of unresolved cases, Wisconsin Watch reported. The backlog creates situations where cases are dismissed, people are held in custody for excessive periods waiting for trial, and attorneys on both sides of cases are overwhelmed. “Justice delayed, justice denied,” is how Kent Lovern, Milwaukee County’s District Attorney, described the backlog’s consequences. Yet in late January, the bill was amended to cut assistance for Milwaukee except for additional assistant prosecutor positions. 

When questioned about the cuts during an early February Senate hearing, Steffens said “there were certain things that had to be done” in order to get unanimous support for the bill among his fellow Republicans. Other counties, including Waukesha, Green Bay, Menomonee, Kenosha, Richland, Sauk, Ozaukee, Washington, Jefferson, Eau Claire, and numerous others didn’t see cuts in the number of additional public defenders the bill supports. 

Since the COVID-19 pandemic of 2020, courts across the state have battled backlogs and staffing shortages. In August 2025, Wisconsin Watch reported, there was a backlog of 12,586 felony cases across the entire Wisconsin court system. Currently, according to Wisconsin Watch, there are over 10,000 unresolved felony cases in Milwaukee County’s court system.

Answering questions from Sen. LaTonya Johnson (D-Milwaukee), Steffens explained that the original bill was designed based on clear and “clinical” needs assessments. “However,” said Steffens, “there does become a period where politics sometimes gets involved. And the substitute that was passed, again unanimously in the Assembly, did reflect some of those political pressures.” Instead of ensuring Milwaukee’s justice system gets the resources it needs now, Steffens said there would be “a continued opportunity through the next budget” to accomplish that.

“People have different positions on things all the time, and we have to respond to that as bill authors,” said Steffens. “I will say this, though, with every piece of legislation we introduce we have an opportunity to do nothing, something, or everything. This is quite something. This will be the largest increase in well over 15 years for these positions. The people who have been working on this look at this as a historic opportunity. If you are looking for perfection in this bill, you will not find it.”

Steffens declined to say which Republican lawmakers did not want to support Milwaukee County’s court system.

In a statement to Wisconsin Examiner, State Public Defender Jennifer Bias stressed the need for more defense attorneys in the court system. “Wisconsin has a dire need for more public defender staff statewide,” Bias said in an emailed statement. “Even in its amended form, this bill is a big step in the right direction and has the full support of our agency.”

On the Assembly floor Thursday evening, Steffens said that over his nearly 12 years in the legislature, he has worked with the Republican majority (which he noted has maintained “nearly uninterrupted control” for 30 years) to pass new crime laws or measures to enhance existing crime laws hundreds of times. Steffens said he was unaware of how this would shape the court system, and that the thousands of case backlogs is a sign that he and other lawmakers have failed the court system. He recounted hearing about a man in the Brown County Jail, who claimed he was innocent, and spent over a year waiting his case to conclude. As a result, he lost his job, his wife, and his job.

“That’s not justice,” said Steffens. “The Constitution guarantees that every person shall be provided with a speedy trial. We’ve been denying that to people throughout this state. In Brown County alone, we have a backlog of 8,000 cases.” Steffens added, “I’m trying to make up for my errors, my failure as a legislator, and I hope you’ll join me.”

Recalling a colleague who said that the bill “is the cost of being a law and order state,” he declared, “it’s time to pay that bill, and we’re going to do it by hiring these people. So I hope you’ll all join me in supporting this bipartisan piece of legislation and making a substantial step forward in restoring some measure of justice for all the people in Wisconsin.”

After Steffens spoke a voice vote was called on the bill. Some lawmakers very audibly yelled “no!” but were unable to stop the bill from passing and being messaged to the Senate. 

Safety and support for everyone, except if you live in Milwaukee

“We see time and time again that Milwaukee County is blamed for its criminal activity,” Johnson said in frustration during an interview earlier this week. “We’re blamed for the rise in crime in other suburban areas, and other surrounding areas in Milwaukee, but this is a clear indication of why that continues to happen. Because when we have opportunities such as this…And I’m upset that other counties are getting these resources. If they need them, they deserve them. Milwaukee deserves those same measures of safety and security, too.” A spokesperson for Steffens said that he was unavailable for comment, and Wimberger’s office didn’t respond to Wisconsin Examiner’s request. 

Johnson said that the motivation to cut Milwaukee out of the court support bill stemmed from a conflict involving the district attorney’s office, public defender’s office and a court watch group called Enough Is Enough. The group is dedicated to Erin Mogensen, a 32-year-old Shorewood woman who was pregnant when a driver crashed into and killed her in 2023. Enough Is Enough monitors similar cases in the court system, and has issued reports suggesting that judges delivered sentences in reckless driving and fleeing cases that were more lenient than what prosecutors recommended. 

Last fall, two regional managers of the Wisconsin State Public Defender’s Office issued a letter to judges in the Milwaukee County Circuit Court’s criminal division accusing Enough Is Enough of being little more than “an extension of the DA’s office,” the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported. The defenders obtained 258 emails from a public records request, showing “extensive meetings” between members of Enough Is Enough and the Milwaukee County DA’s office. Current and former assistant district attorneys were involved in the meetings, and even worked to review and draft letters from Enough Is Enough addressed to the judiciary. The public defenders warned the judges to consider this when evaluating impact statements or the presence of Enough Is Enough. 

Both the group and the DA’s office pushed back against the public defenders’ accusations, the Journal Sentinel reported. Lovern acknowledged that he was approached by the group’s members in 2024, when he announced his bid for district attorney after John Chisholm retired. By the time Lovern became DA, Enough Is Enough had obtained 501(c)3 status. Lovern said he offered the group access where appropriate and assistance from his office. 

Rep. Bob Donovan (R-Greenfield) jumped to the group’s defense, accusing the public defender’s office of trying to intimidate and discredit what Donovan called a “volunteer” and “grassroots” organization. Donovan had backed Enough Is Enough since its inception, has focused on the issue of  reckless driving in recent years, according to the Journal Sentinel. Donovan didn’t respond to a request for comment for this story. 

“When we talk about how things in this building can be political,” Johnson told the Wisconsin Examiner, speaking of the state Capitol, “this is a perfect example of a petty argument between two factions of the court system can be interjected by somebody in the state Legislature that just takes this argument to a whole new [level].” 

The decision to strip the public defender positions from Milwaukee will only worsen the court backlog, Johnson said. “So you’re going to make things more complicated simply because you’re being petty,” she told the Examiner. “And what really pisses me off is the fact that we know in this building that if the rest of the state is taken care of with their needs, and the only entity that has a need is Milwaukee County, it will not get met. Because we’ve seen them slight Milwaukee County before…You don’t get to trump public safety for hundreds of thousands of people simply because you’re being petty, and petty politics is playing into this state Legislature, and their responsibility to an entire county.”

This story was updated at 10 a.m. Wedensday with comments from Sheriff Riewestahl

Eau Claire County Sheriff Dave Riewestahl announced Tuesday that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents had detained four individuals, including one at a construction site in the city of Altoona and three others who fled and barricaded themselves in a garage in the town of Washington.

Riewestahl said his office was contacted by ICE agents who said they would be at a construction site in the city of Altoona, near the city of Eau Claire, to arrest a suspect who had allegedly assaulted a law enforcement officer.

After agents attempted  to arrest the suspect, Riewestahl said four individuals fled the site, and one was apprehended. The sheriff did not specify if the individual detained was the individual ICE was seeking.

The three who fled the scene entered a residence in the town of Washington, confronted a homeowner, then went into the garage. The homeowner then locked the door between the house and the garage.

Riewestahl said his office was called to address a criminal trespass to a dwelling, and then county deputies requested assistance by the city of Altoona police.

Upon the request of the homeowner, the sheriff said, his officers entered the home and attempted to gain voluntary compliance with the three individuals in the garage, but when verbal requests failed, the officers used pepperballs and the three surrendered.

Riewestahl said the three individuals who had trespassed at the town of Washington home were turned over to ICE agents. None of the four taken into ICE’s custody were detained at the Eau Claire County Jail.

“The reason the three were not detained locally is because the homeowner did not want to pursue criminal charges,” the sheriff told the Examiner. “So we did not do that. In talking with ICE, they said they had the authority to take them in custody for immigration activity, so we turned them over to immigration and immigration took all four of those individuals.”

Local officials from Duluth, Minnesota and Superior, Wisconsin spoke to the crowd gathered for the  11th annual Memorial March for Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Relatives (MMIWR) on Valentine’s Day  in Duluth.

The movement to address the scourge of missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls started in Canada 35 years ago on Valentine’s Day. Later, missing and murdered men and relatives were added.

Held at the American Indian Community Housing Organization (AICHO), the event featured proclamations from both the cities.

Duluth’s proclamation noted that Native American women face murder rates 10 times the national average and that the “Minnesota MMIWR Task force reports that indigenous women, girls and two-spirit people are more likely to experience violence, be murdered or go missing compared to other demographic groups in Minnesota.”

Superior Mayor Jim Paine said because his wife and daughters are Alaskan natives, he is personally  invested in addressing the issue of missing and murdered Indigenous women.

He described attending the State of The Tribes address by Nicole Boyd, chair of the Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa at the Wisconsin State Capitol on Feb. 10.

“The only time she broke down in that speech, the only time she wavered at all, was talking about Native women and girls and the fact that too many of them are missing, too many of them have been murdered, and the mission to save them, to protect them, to remember them,” he said.

Paine added,  “We’re doing a lot more this year than last, but that work continues today, and every single day of the year, obviously, like you, the Native women in my life are the most important part of my life, I am deeply grateful for everything that they do for me, and I would do anything to protect them, like all of you, and that means on days like today, we have to speak as loudly and as clearly that the Native women that are in our lives, that are here. We love you. We will protect you. We will do anything for you. To the Native women that are missing, we will never stop looking for you, and to those that have truly been lost or have walked on, we will remember and protect and treat your legacy and memory with the safety that you didn’t have in life.”

Jana Williams, a member of the Leech Lake Band of Lake Superior Chippewa in Minnesota, talked about the alleged failure of the Minneapolis Police Department (MPD) to investigate the death of her niece, Allison Lussier, a member of the Red Lake Band of Lake Superior Chippewa in Minnesota, whose body was discovered in February 2024 in her apartment. No death investigation was conducted, Williams said, even though Lussier had contacted the police to report abuse by her boyfriend.

“If you know Allison’s story, you know this, MPD saw an indigenous woman,” said Williams. “They saw drug paraphernalia in her apartment and around her body, a staged scene. And instead of following their own protocol, a supervisor intentionally called off the crime scene. … That one decision destroyed every piece of evidence that could have brought justice to her name.” According to Williams, community members reported that her niece’s killer bragged about her murder. Because of Williams’ activism, the Minneapolis City Council has requested an independent investigation of the case. 

“Who is going to fight for you if we do not stand together?” Williams  asked the crowd. “We are less than 2% of the population. We cannot afford to be divided. We must stand as one.”

Rene Goodrich. organizer of the event, noted the official Minnesota Missing and Murdered Indigenous Relatives (MMIR) office in Minnesota, founded in 2019,  the only state office in America officially focused on the issue, served 25 families in 2025 and was involved in eight new cases, including four that were resolved in the Duluth area with three being safely found.

Goodrich also noted the state’s MMIR office has a reward fund, up to $10,000 per person, that was inspired by a city of Duluth reward fund, the first in the nation, called Gaagige Mikwendaagoziwag or “They will be remembered forever.”

Late in the meeting, relatives and friends held posters and said the names of missing or murdered people, including Sheila St. Clair, missing since 2015, Nevah Kingbird, missing since 2021 and Peter Martin, missing since 2024. Others held symbolic red dresses.

After a drum dance, about 100 people gathered on the street with posters, banners and dresses and marched to  the Building for Women where the marchers released tobacco they were carrying into a sacred fire, a tradition for seeking a blessing. 

Correction: An earlier version of this story misspelled Jana Williams’ name. We regret the error.

In the Wisconsin prison system, incarcerated mothers still lack a program that would allow physical custody of their children, a year after a court ruling affirmed that a state law requires the Department of Corrections to take steps to bring together incarcerated moms and babies. The ACLU is suing to try to force the issue.

Wisconsin statute 301.049 calls for a “mother-young child care program” allowing women to retain the physical custody of their children during participation in the program. It says a woman entering the program must either be pregnant or have a child less than a year old. 

Alyssa Puphal and Natasha Curtin-Weber are plaintiffs in the case against the Wisconsin Department of Corrections (DOC), and are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin and Quarles & Brady LLP. 

While a judge sided with the plaintiffs last year, they are attempting to re-open the case, saying the DOC has not implemented the program required by law. 

“At this moment, each and every woman in DOC’s physical custody with a baby under one year old sleeps apart from her child every single night,” the Feb. 4 filing stated. 

Nine states have prison nursery programs, and a few others are considering or developing a program, Stateline reported in January. 

According to Wisconsin Public Radio, DOC communications director Beth Hardtke wrote in an email that because the Legislature turned down a budget request from Gov. Tony Evers to expand earned release to allow mothers to spend more time with their children outside of prison, the department is now being required to expand the mother-child program to include incarcerated mothers despite a lack of additional funding and of statutory changes that would allow more incarcerated women to take part.

DOC had previously argued that it was meeting the requirements of the 1991 statute by facilitating contact between babies and mothers on probation, extended supervision and parole. But a year ago, in February 2025, Dane County Circuit Court Judge Stephen Elkhe disagreed, ordering DOC to provide a mother-child program inside Wisconsin prisons.

“Reforming the criminal justice system to make our communities safer is a key priority of (Gov. Tony Evers’) administration and that includes corrections reforms such as a mother-young child program for incarcerated women,” Hardtke wrote, according to WPR. 

The ACLU motion called for remedial sanctions to get the agency to comply with the court order, including a daily fine for each day the contempt of court continues. The organization asked that the money from the fines be set aside to support the mother-child program, and claimed that a growing fine would ensure resources for the program. 

“With each month that passes, Defendants’ failure to act violates state law and violates the Writ,” the motion stated. 

When the lawsuit was filed in June 2024, Puphal had already given birth while incarcerated, while Curtin-Weber was pregnant. As of the filing of the lawsuit, their requests to participate in the mother-young program were refused or had not been responded to, according to a complaint published online by the ACLU. 

Puphal and Curtin-Weber were released on extended supervision last year, according to online DOC records. 

The state law enacted in 1991 states that the department shall provide the program for females who are prisoners or on probation, extended supervision or parole and who would participate as an alternative to revocation. 

When a person is released from prison to supervision, they must follow certain rules. If their supervision is revoked, the person will either be returned to court for sentencing or transported to a correctional institution. 

The department contended that it was in line with the law and that the word “or” in the statute indicated the agency could either provide the program for incarcerated mothers or for mothers on supervision.

DOC argued that it had a mother-child program for women on probation, extended supervision or parole who are pregnant or have a child under the age of one, and that it didn’t have to offer the program to incarcerated mothers. Wisconsin’s state budget includes $198,000 for a mother-young child program. 

Ehlke sided with the plaintiffs. He said they had established a clear right to be included in the class of people the department must consider for the mother-child program. 

The ACLU motion on Feb. 4 stated that the court had ordered the department to establish the program “forthwith,” or without delay, and  moved to reopen the case, arguing there has been “no meaningful progress” since that order despite three meetings between department representatives and counsel for the plaintiffs. 

“To avoid another year of excuses — or worse, another 35 years — Plaintiffs ask the Court to reopen this case for the purposes of enforcing the Court’s Writ,” the motion stated. 

The plaintiffs’ filing includes a letter and a list of questions sent to the Department of Corrections in December. It states that the Ostara Initiative offered to create a mother-young child care program for DOC at no cost to the agency in April 2024 and has continued to approach the agency. It described the Ostara Initiative as “a credible non-profit that DOC has already partnered with for other services.” 

The Examiner reached out to the Department of Corrections for a response to the plaintiffs’ filing, and also asked if the claims about Ostara were correct and if the department is planning to partner with Ostara on the program. Hardtke wrote that it is the department’s practice not to comment on ongoing litigation. 

A telephone scheduling conference in the case is scheduled for March 2. 

Criminal justice has emerged as one of the most wide-ranging and politically charged areas on lawmakers’ agendas in this year’s state legislative sessions. Across the country, legislators are weighing proposals that affect nearly every part of the criminal justice system, including policing, gun policy, solving crimes, sentencing, prison oversight and reentry support.

The breadth of legislation reflects how deeply crime policy intersects with daily life, shaping public safety, civil rights, state spending and the scope of law enforcement. It also comes amid a shifting national conversation about crime itself. While violent crime rose during the pandemic, recent data shows declines in many categories, despite continued public concern.

According to Gallup’s most recent annual crime poll, Americans’ perceptions of crime improved in 2025. Approximately 49% of adults now say crime is an “extremely” or “very” serious problem in the United States, and the same share believe crime has increased in the past year. Both figures are down significantly from 2024 and are at their lowest levels since at least 2018.

Still, crime remains a top political issue, particularly in statehouses where lawmakers may face pressure to respond to high-profile incidents and constituent fears.

Gun policy

Firearm-related legislation has moved quickly in several states, with lawmakers pursuing sharply different approaches that reflect regional politics and partisan control.

In Democratic-led states, lawmakers have advanced proposals aimed at tightening restrictions on firearms.

Virginia House Democrats approved a sweeping package of bills this month that would restrict access to assault-style weapons, tighten firearm storage and transfer rules, limit where guns can be carried in public and expand civil liability for the gun industry. The bills are now being considered in the Senate.

Maryland lawmakers are debating a measure that would prohibit the manufacture, sale, purchase or transfer of certain handguns that can be converted into automatic weapons using an illegal accessory known as a pistol converter.

The bill doesn’t name specific firearm models, but it would effectively ban secondhand sales of some popular discontinued guns. In urging its members to oppose the bill, the National Rifle Association’s legislative arm says on its website, “These conversion devices are already illegal, yet this proposal targets responsible firearm owners rather than criminals who ignore existing law.”

But sponsors noted that the measure would exempt current owners of the affected firearms and argued that it doesn’t punish responsible firearm owners. Baltimore Mayor Brandon Scott led a rally last week in favor of the bill, saying it would reduce homicides. And a high school student testified to lawmakers about her fears of a school shooting.

Other states have focused on regulating firearm sales.

New Mexico senators passed legislation restricting certain firearm transactions, while lawmakers in New York and Washington state have proposed measures that would prohibit the production and possession of 3D-printing files used to manufacture gun parts to build so-called ghost guns.

Gun control advocates say 3D-printed guns are becoming more common, especially among young people. Just this week, a ghost gun was recovered after a student was shot inside a Maryland high school. The student’s injuries weren’t life threatening, and a suspect has been charged with attempted murder.

But some gun rights advocates say those measures go too far.

“We believe that making your own firearms, if you have the skills to do it, is an American tradition. It literally dates back to the founding of our country,” said Chris Stone, the director of state and local affairs for Gun Owners of America, one of the country’s largest gun advocacy groups. The group opposes bans on 3D-printing firearms.

Republican-led states are pushing in the opposite direction, removing specific firearm regulations, limiting local regulation, strengthening legal protections for gun shops and dismantling “gun-free” zones, such as areas near schools or inside government buildings.

South Dakota Republican Gov. Larry Rhoden signed a bill into law this week that deregulates gun silencers, or suppressors. These devices will be removed from the state’s definition of a controlled weapon.

In Georgia, lawmakers approved a ban that would keep local governments from adopting gun storage requirements. The bill has not yet been sent to Republican Gov. Brian Kemp for consideration.

In South Carolina, legislators have proposed a measure that would protect gun shops from being held liable in lawsuits when crimes are committed with products they sold, as long as the original sale was lawful. That bill remains in committee.

Florida lawmakers advanced legislation last month to lower the age to purchase long guns to 18. The West Virginia Senate also passed a bill that would allow 18- to 20-year-olds to carry concealed weapons without a permit, removing current training and licensing requirements for that age group.

New Hampshire and Wyoming legislators are considering proposals that would prohibit public colleges and universities from regulating whether students, faculty or visitors are able to carry concealed firearms and nonlethal weapons on campus.

Immigration and policing

Questions about the role of law enforcement — particularly in immigration enforcement — have become a flashpoint in state legislatures, as lawmakers debate how closely local and state agencies should cooperate with federal authorities.

In some states, lawmakers are moving to require or expand cooperation with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Bills in Alabama, Arizona, Iowa and Kentucky would encourage or mandate that state or local law enforcement agencies collaborate with ICE or expand officers’ authority to question or detain people over their immigration status. Supporters argue the measures are necessary to enforce federal law and improve public safety.

Other states are taking the opposite approach. In Virginia this month, Democratic Gov. Abigail Spanberger ended a 287(g) agreement with ICE that allowed state police and corrections officers to assist the agency with certain federal immigration enforcement functions. Spanberger, who has a background in law enforcement, had promised in her campaign to end the agreement, saying she wants policing agencies to focus on their core duties.

The move drew sharp criticism from state Republican leaders, with GOP lawmakers arguing that the decision prioritizes politics over public safety and could expose the state to retaliation from the Trump administration.

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, a Democrat, introduced a similar proposal last month that appears to be gaining more support from police and elected officials.

The Maryland House and Senate this month also overwhelmingly approved bills that would prohibit 287(g) agreements between local police and federal immigration agencies. Democratic Gov. Wes Moore is expected to sign them. Several local law enforcement officials across the state have urged the governor to veto the measures, arguing that ending the agreements would lead to more federal immigration enforcement activity and higher crime rates.

Beyond immigration, legislatures also are grappling with broader questions about policing authority and accountability.

In Indiana, lawmakers approved legislation expanding the role of the National Guard’s military police in certain law enforcement functions, giving the governor authority that some Democrats say could be abused.

Iowa lawmakers are considering a proposal that would eliminate affirmative action and anti-bias training requirements for police officers.

A bill in Utah would create the Violent Crime Clearance Rate Fund, which would provide grants to law enforcement agencies to support efforts to improve the rate at which violent crimes are solved.

Sentencing and prison conditions

State legislatures also are revisiting what happens after arrest, with several states considering tougher penalties for certain crimes.

Iowa Republicans have proposed a 20-year mandatory minimum sentence for some repeat offenders.

Alabama lawmakers are considering a bill that would raise the base penalty for fleeing from police from a misdemeanor to a felony, with harsher penalties for repeat offenses and other aggravating factors.

The Kentucky House advanced a bill aimed at cracking down on street racing. It would impose penalties of up to 30 days in jail and $1,000 in fines, and allow vehicles used in the offense to be destroyed or auctioned to support the state’s crime victims compensation fund.

Other states are pursuing more rehabilitative approaches.

Lawmakers in Washington state are considering legislation that would give people serving long sentences a new pathway to release.

Oklahoma lawmakers have proposed a measure that would eliminate the requirement that a prison inmate serve a set amount of time before becoming eligible for good-time credits, which would also allow people awaiting transfer to prison to earn these credits sooner.

Last month, Illinois Democratic Gov. JB Pritzker signed the Clean Slate Act into law, paving the way for an estimated 1.7 million adults with nonviolent criminal records to have them automatically sealed beginning in 2029.

Juvenile justice debates also have been unfolding alongside these efforts.

States including Colorado, Utah, Missouri, Maryland and Kansas are reconsidering when young people can be charged as adults, how long they can be detained and what role rehabilitation should play.

In Kansas, for example, lawmakers are considering expanding judges’ authority to send youths to juvenile prison and increasing detention limits, moves that opponents say would reverse a decade of changes designed to keep low-risk youths out of custody.

In recent years, poor prison conditions and lax oversight have emerged as a bipartisan concern, driven in part by staffing shortages and the rising costs associated with incarceration.

Florida legislators are considering proposals that would create an independent ombudsman to monitor prison conditions. Alabama and Arizona lawmakers have filed measures that would address oversight of food services in prisons and fund the state’s independent prison oversight office, respectively.

Several states are working to expand death penalty options, both for crimes and for execution methods.

Alabama legislators passed a measure this month that would expand the death penalty to include child sex crimes. The bill is now awaiting the signature of Republican Gov. Kay Ivey, who expressed her support for the proposal last month.

In Indiana, lawmakers considered a proposal that would add firing squad and gas as execution methods.

In New Hampshire, lawmakers are considering two Republican-backed bills that would reinstate the death penalty — nearly seven years after the state voted to abolish it. One bill would bring it back for homicide or sexual assault offenses against children under 13, while the other proposal would reinstate it for capital murder, which would combine the murder with aggravating circumstances.

Republican Gov. Kelly Ayotte told reporters last fall she would like to see capital punishment restored in the state.

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

The Barron County Sheriff on Wednesday said in a social media post that area residents shouldn’t trust the news media about Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s presence in the area. 

In the post on Facebook, the sheriff’s office challenged the accuracy of local news reports on ICE activity in the area that prompted “a flurry of calls and messages” to the sheriff’s office. The post stated that ICE was in Barron County on Sunday looking for two individuals but did not locate either of them. The post also said that information about ICE should come from the agency itself. 

“The Barron County Sheriff’s Department encourages everyone to read past the headlines and question what they see or hear in the news, and especially on social media, as it relates to ICE operations,” the department wrote. “Do your own research and visit the Immigration and Customs Enforcement website to see what their operations entail and who they are apprehending.”

The post appears to reference Trump administration claims that ICE is targeting the “worst of the worst.” However, recent reporting from CBS News found that less than 14% of the 400,000 immigrants arrested by ICE in President Donald Trump’s first year in office had been charged or convicted of violent crimes. 

Data from Wisconsin has shown that the immigrants ICE has arrested here have largely been people charged with but not yet convicted of crimes — a practice that some county law enforcement officials have complained prevents the conclusion of local criminal cases. 

Additionally, ICE has frequently lied about its encounters with the public and the people it has arrested. After an operation in Manitowoc County in which ICE arrested several dairy workers — one of the highest profile ICE actions in Wisconsin of the past year — ICE claimed that one of the men arrested was a sex offender. However the man it referred to had been in ICE custody for months prior to the Manitowoc County arrests. ICE claims about violent activity by Renee Good and Alex Pretti, have also been disproven. 

ICE has been expanding operations throughout western Wisconsin since the surge of personnel into Minnesota began in December. In the Facebook post, the Barron County sheriff’s office said it would cooperate with local ICE operations. 

“As previously stated, if ICE comes to Barron County and requests assistance of the Barron County Sheriff’s Department, we will support our law enforcement partners,” the Barron County sheriff’s post stated. “Unlawful obstruction and interference with any operations will not be tolerated.”

A years-long debate over the use of facial recognition software by the Milwaukee Police Department (MPD) came to a head at a contentious Thursday meeting of the city’s Fire and Police Commission (FPC) attended by more than 60 local residents. Over the course of questioning, stretching late into the evening hours, commissioners learned from MPD leadership that the department had continued using facial recognition software, even as a draft policy to put guardrails on the technology was still being developed outside of the FPC’s control. 

By meeting’s end, FPC vice chairwoman Bree Spencer expressed a desire for the commission to consider finding some way to push for a pause to MPD’s use of facial recognition software, though the FPC itself did not take any immediate formal action. Less than 24 hours later, MPD Chief Jeffrey Norman announced that the department would ban the use of facial recognition technology, and discontinue its efforts to acquire permanent access to the technology. 

During the Thursday meeting, Norman and his staff were grilled by FPC commissioners after hours of impassioned public testimony. The sweltering meeting room was packed almost shoulder-to-shoulder, with every seat taken and people standing along the wall in spaces not already taken by the local news station’s bulky cameras. Many others waited in the hallway, as an overflow room had not been set up.

One by one, local residents expressed a variety of grievances about facial recognition. Some decried MPD’s prior use of software without disclosure to the public or FPC, while others expressed fears about how the technology could be used against Milwaukeeans by what many called an authoritarian federal government. 

Paul Smith, a member of the Oneida Nation who serves on Milwaukee’s Equal Rights Commission, was the first to speak. Smith described how his relatives had been among the first to come down from the Oneida reservation to Milwaukee seeking factory work. “We are also people who have to carry two IDs all the time,” said Smith. He suggested that facial recognition and other camera technologies are methods the government uses to track people it considers enemies. 

“I live in fear every day,” said Smith, describing how his heart rate accelerates when he drives out of Milwaukee County. Smith added that facial recognition technology is unreliable.  “My dad can use my phone because his face looks like mine,” he said.  “These cameras don’t work and they punish people, and there’s no presumption of innocence when you’re being watched all the time.”

Nadiyah Johnson, founder and CEO of the Milky Way Tech Hub, highlighted the notoriously high error rates facial recognition software has for people of color. Johnson said that federal tests have shown false positive rates as much as 10 to 100 times higher for Black people. “I’m sure that we all can understand why that would be a problem for the city of Milwaukee,” said Johnson. She added that “guardrails do not fix the core problem.” 

When surveillance infrastructure is created, Johnson said, the scope of who is targeted expands. She and other community members who spoke brought up Flock license plate reader cameras which, like facial recognition, are AI-powered and a top concern for many who attended Thursday night’s FPC meeting. Flock has attracted criticism for being used for vague or unlawful reasons by police, and for leaving some feeds exposed on the open internet. “This is not a future concern, this is already happening nationally,” said Johnson. “The public cannot meaningfully consent to systems we can not see, audit, or challenge.”

Amanda Merkwae, advocacy director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin, recounted her attempts to learn more about MPD’s use of facial recognition by filing open records requests. After waiting five months and threatening to sue, the ACLU was sent a response that the MPD does not track requests made for use of facial recognition in individual investigations. When the city’s IT department ran an email search, the term “facial recognition” appeared in 196,688 emails from 2020-2025. 

When the ACLU narrowed the request to 16 cases which MPD cited in presentations to city commissions, they found that “in a handful of those cases” which had been “hand picked” by MPD for those presentations, “the police reports did not mention [Facial Recognition Technology] at all,” Merkwae told the FPC. “In conversations with some defense attorneys, it appears that [Facial Recognition Technology] use was not turned over to the defense in discovery in some cases,” said Merkwae. “In cases where attorneys filed pre-trial motions to get insight into the notoriously racially biased [Facial Recognition Technology] algorithms, they hit a brick wall because that information is proprietary.” 

In its presentations to city officials, MPD had said that facial recognition helped identify suspects in cases including sexual assault and shooting investigations.

Much of the public testimony Thursday focused on the potential for surveillance technologies to harm democracy. Speakers focused on the immigration crackdown in Minnesota, where thousands of people have been arrested and two people killed by federal agents. Videos posted online show immigration agents taking pictures of protesters, legal observers and vehicles, using facial recognition technology to identify detainees, and taunting members of the public by saying their pictures were going to be uploaded to a database of  domestic terrorists. An immigrants’ rights group recently discovered what it describes as a watchlist of immigration attorneys created by ICE.

Taleavia Cole and her husband Caliph Muab-El have experienced police surveillance after protesting the killing of Cole’s brother Alvin. Several of Cole’s family members, their lawyers and dozens of others were placed on a list created by the Wauwatosa Police Department. The list, which also included a Wisconsin Examiner reporter, was shared with numerous state, local, and federal agencies and was also referred to by police as a “target list”.

Muab-El said Black and brown communities have been used as test subjects for surveillance and militarized policing. This is how he views MPD’s deal with the data company Biometrica, which has offered to trade 2.5 million jail and booking photos from Milwaukee for MPD to have access to facial recognition software. 

“We’re talking about people,” said Muab-El. “And when we’re talking about people, we need to focus on the things that are most important for people to thrive in circumstances like this. Everything in our society and our community has been gutted from us almost. The resources are very scarce already…To institute something like this that will exacerbate the circumstances of our already falling and broken-in-pieces communities is definitely an attack on justice on our people.” 

He stressed that “anybody can be misidentified at any time,” and that the city will not be able to prevent federal agencies from accessing the data it collects using facial recognition software. “No one is safe,” said Muab-El. “Bystanders who believe in justice and the cause of people, these people are going to become more vulnerable. These attacks are going to become more prevalent…They’re going to become more intense.”

Cole recounted her own experiences of being placed on the target list, and her belief that even her family’s phone calls were being monitored. “So whose side are you on is the real question, because someday it could be your family member,” she said. “And next thing you know, they want to know what you know, what you’re saying, what you’re doing. Like you’re a criminal, like you’re nobody.” 

Testimony went on for several hours, pausing for a presentation on facial recognition technology from the New York University Law School Policing Project. The presenters said that while facial recognition can assist law enforcement investigations, the technology also carries serious constitutional and civil risks. Whether a city or town uses facial recognition software should be a decision made by the entire community, the presenters said, adding that having guardrails to prevent abuse of the technology is important. 

Late in the meeting, after many people had left, Chief Norman and MPD staff provided an update and took questions from the FPC. Norman said a draft policy his department’s use of facial recognition technology had not yet been finalized, and that he was “slow walking” the process to get as much input as possible. He stressed that facial recognition software is used to develop leads, and cannot be used as the sole basis for establishing probable cause for an arrest. The department had also begun logging uses of facial recognition, but those records only captured uses since 2024. 

Under sharp questioning from FPC Commissioner Krissie Fung the commission learned that MPD had continued using facial recognition technology even as the drafting of a policy was ongoing. Some sort of of a draft policy — described by Fung as a “draft of a draft of a draft” — appeared to have been viewed by at least some members of the city’s common council, but not the FPC. 

Although several commissioners expressed concerns about facial recognition technology and MPD’s deal with Biometrica, the FPC’s power to do anything about it is limited, since the Republican-controlled Legislature had worked to eliminate the FPC’s policy-making powers for the Milwaukee police. The debate over the use of facial recognition software in Milwaukee had gone on since last year, with members of the public speaking against its adoption consistently and in great numbers. Spencer, the FPC’s vice-chairwoman, said that the public shouldn’t have to attend more meetings to say the same things, and that her own trust in the department on the issue had eroded. 

In a statement issued Friday, Heather Hough, Norman’s chief of staff, said the police department understands “the public concern, particularly in light of national circumstances…Despite our belief that this is useful technology…we recognize that public trust is far more valuable.” Hough’s statement continued, “therefore, effective immediately, Chief (Jeffrey) Norman will issue a department directive banning the use of facial recognition for all members.” 

Hough said that MPD will continue work on creating a policy, but will not use facial recognition technology until that process is complete. While MPD appeared to be responding to the public outcry, the Milwaukee Police Association (the department’s union) said in a statement that it was “deeply concerned and disappointed” by the decision to restrict facial recognition technology. The police association was also irked by recent restrictions on vehicle pursuits saying that both policy shifts do not “eliminate crime or danger,” but instead “risks shifting that danger onto Milwaukee residents and the officers sworn to protect them.” 

The union’s statement described facial recognition as “an investigative tool that can assist detectives in generating leads in violent crime cases. It does not replace traditional police work or serve as a basis for arrest without further investigation. When used responsibly and with appropriate safeguards, this technology can help identify violent offenders, support victims, and improve case clearance rates.”

Editor’s note: If you or someone you know needs help, the national suicide and crisis lifeline in the U.S. is available by calling or texting 988. There is also an online chat at 988lifeline.org.

Cindy Clemishire was 12 years old on Christmas night in 1982 when a traveling evangelist staying with her family first abused her.

According to Clemishire, the sexual abuse continued over the next four years. She eventually told her family and the abuse stopped. But her abuser, Robert Morris, went on to found Gateway Church in Texas, which became one of the largest megachurches in the nation.

When Clemishire sought restitution in 2007, Morris’ attorney offered her $25,000 if she would sign a nondisclosure agreement that would prevent her from speaking publicly about the abuse. She refused.

“Had I agreed to that NDA, Robert would have continued to have power over me,” Clemishire told Texas lawmakers last May, as she urged them to pass a state law that would ban nondisclosure agreements in child sexual abuse civil cases.

“Because I refused to sign that NDA at 37,” she said, “I am able to sit here today at 55 years old and share my story in hopes of helping others.”

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican, signed the bill into law last June. Texas joined other states, including California, Missouri and Tennessee, in prohibiting nondisclosure agreements, or NDAs, from being used in civil settlements that involve child — and in some states, adult — sexual abuse.

Morris pleaded guilty to child sex abuse charges in October, publicly admitting what he did to Clemishire.

This year, Clemishire’s home state of Oklahoma, as well as Alabama and Georgia, are considering similar laws.

Oklahoma’s bill was introduced this week. Last month, Alabama lawmakers unanimously passed identical bills in the state House and Senate. If one of the bills passes the other chamber, it will head to the governor’s desk. In Georgia, Republican Gov. Brian Kemp announced during his final State of the State address last month that he would support a version of the law.

Kemp said the bill would “further protect our children, expose abusers, and save lives by preventing the silence imposed on far too many victims.”

Many of the new bills are versions of Trey’s Law, model legislation — first passed in Missouri — named for Trey Carlock, a survivor of child sexual abuse. Carlock died by suicide in 2019 at age 28. Though his abuser was convicted of sexually abusing several boys, Carlock had signed a nondisclosure agreement in a civil settlement that prevented him from speaking about his abuse at Kanakuk, a popular Christian sports camp based in Missouri, and the camp’s role in enabling the abuse.

Elizabeth Phillips, Carlock’s sister, later founded the Trey’s Law movement in his memory. Trey’s Law works to get NDA bans passed at the state and federal levels.

Such bills attempt to address a civil litigation issue that gained increased attention during the #MeToo movement. Organizations such as Kanakuk that are caught up in child abuse allegations sometimes offer financial settlements to abuse survivors in exchange for their signing agreements that legally restrict them from speaking publicly about the abuse or the organization’s role in it.

Critics of these kinds of NDAs say they’re a legal tool — originally intended to protect confidential corporate information — that’s been misused to suppress survivors’ stories and shield organizations that enable abuse.

“NDAs may be presented as legal formalities, but in cases like mine, they are tools that continue the abuse,” Clemishire told Texas lawmakers last year. “They protect the abuser and keep victims in shame. They prevent the children from being protected and they make it harder to stop abuse from happening again.”

State laws vary in their protections. California enacted a law in 2016 banning NDAs for felony sex offenses, child sexual abuse and sexual assault against vulnerable adults, such as older adults and those with disabilities. Tennessee‘s 2018 law voids NDAs in child sexual assault claims. New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania have placed restrictions on NDAs. Various courts have also struck down some NDAs that appeared to be designed to hide misconduct.

There’s not currently a federal law analogous to Trey’s Law, though Congress has tried to address the issue. The 2022 federal Speak Out Act specifically targets preemptive NDAs used in workplaces. It nullifies nondisclosure contracts that are signed, often as a condition of employment, before a dispute involving sexual assault or sexual harassment happens. But the law doesn’t apply to NDAs signed after allegations are made.

Much of the new state legislation, such as in Oklahoma and Texas, applies retroactively, nullifying older NDAs. Alabama’s bill would only apply to contracts entered into or amended after the measure is signed into law.

It’s difficult to find public detractors for such legislation. It’s one of the few issues that has, so far, united both sides of the political aisle. In the handful of states that have enacted bans on NDAs in sexual assault cases, they’ve passed with unanimous or near-unanimous bipartisan support.

But in Alabama last month, Republican state Sen. Greg Albritton expressed concern that a blanket ban could harm churches and institutions like the Boy Scouts of America that have faced civil allegations that they ignored child abuse or protected abusers.

“That nondisclosure statement is a lifeline, very often, for the institution to continue its efforts in trying to do good,” Albritton told Alabama lawmakers from the Senate floor, adding that he believes NDAs allow organizations to implement reforms and move forward. “If we pass this, we could be doing damage to institutions — including churches, including those not-for-profit organizations — that are doing their best to do good in the communities.

“I would caution that eliminating that tool from civil procedure does more harm to our society than it does good.”

The lawmaker sponsoring Alabama’s bill is another Republican, state Sen. Matt Woods. The Alabama version of Trey’s Law is his first bill in the Senate, after he was elected in a June 2025 special election. He said the bill was brought to his attention by some of Carlock’s relatives who live in his home county.

“We need to allow victims of this terrible act to heal,” Woods told the Alabama Reflector in January.

“The only way they can heal is to be able to disclose what’s happened to them, talk about it, and move on with the healing process.”

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

A demonstrator waves a red cloth as hundreds gather after ICE agent Jonathan Ross shot and killed Renee Good through her car window Wednesday, Jan. 7, 2026 near Portland Avenue and 34th Street. (Photo by Nicole Neri/Minnesota Reformer)

Despite the high-profile U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement actions in Minnesota, ICE arrests were down slightly in January compared to December, according to new data. 

Immigrant detention nationwide also reached a new high in January, and a growing percentage — nearly three-quarters — of people in detention have no criminal convictions.

ICE arrested 36,579 people in  January compared with December (37,842); the numbers haven’t changed much since October (36,621), according to new estimates from a Syracuse University professor.

The number of people in immigration detention reached 70,766 as of Jan. 24, a new high, according to a different report by Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, also at Syracuse University.  

The number in detention has gone up steadily from about 40,000 at the start of the second Trump administration, and the latest number is the largest since the organization, known as TRAC, began tracking immigrant detention in 2019. 

Of those detainees 74.2%, or 52,504, had no criminal convictions, up from 70.4% in June.  

“Since the summer, nearly all of the growth in ICE detention has come from people without criminal convictions or charges — an area of tremendous sustained growth that contradicts the Trump administration’s narrative that they are focused on the worst of the worst,” Austin Kocher, a research assistant professor at Syracuse University who researches immigration enforcement, wrote in a substack posting. 

Kocher is a former researcher for TRAC but is no longer associated with the organization and created estimates of monthly arrests based on detention check-ins. 

Detention facilities in Texas had the largest number of detainees, 18,684, followed by Louisiana (8,207), California (6,422), Florida (5,187) and Georgia (4,178) as of Jan. 24. 

Stateline reporter Tim Henderson can be reached at thenderson@stateline.org.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court has agreed to hear a lawsuit challenging five Wisconsin sheriffs’ practices of holding detainees in their jail for handoffs to ICE.

The ACLU filed the lawsuit in September on behalf of the immigrant rights group Voces de la Frontera. It names sheriff’s offices in Brown, Kenosha, Marathon, Sauk and Walworth counties as respondents. 

All five sheriffs’ offices honor ICE detainers —  nonbinding requests that a law enforcement agency assist ICE in taking custody of a person suspected of being in the country illegally by holding an inmate in a jail up to 48 hours past the person’s scheduled release. The local law enforcement agency can then pass the detainee directly to ICE officers.

The lawsuit argues that the detainers qualify as an arrest and that state statutes prohibit law enforcement agencies from making arrests based on ICE’s administrative warrants.

While most Wisconsin sheriffs’ offices honor ICE detainers, the lawsuit claims that five named offices received roughly a quarter of all detainers issued to Wisconsin sheriffs’ offices between January and July of this year. 

The sheriff’s offices have differing relationships with ICE. Brown and Sauk counties, for instance, also contract with ICE to hold immigrant detainees in their jails, meaning a person could remain in the same jail after entering ICE custody. Kenosha County has no such contract, but it does participate in a federal grant program that partially reimburses local law enforcement agencies for incarceration costs in exchange for data on undocumented inmates. 

ICE records list more than 130 arrests at county jails in Wisconsin between January and July of this year. Nearly 40% of those arrested were awaiting a ruling in their first criminal case.

In its initial petition, Voces de la Frontera urged the Supreme Court to immediately take up the case as a statewide concern. The court’s order, published on Wednesday afternoon, allows the plaintiffs to skip the lower courts entirely.

Liberal justices have a 4-3 majority on the court. At least four unnamed justices voted to immediately accept the case. Justices Annette Ziegler and Rebecca Bradley, both conservatives, dissented. Justice Brian Hagedorn, who often votes with conservatives, discussed the process in an opinion that did not specify his vote.

“When this court grants review in a case, we almost always let our grant order proceed without comment or dissent,” he wrote, later adding: “Even if some of my colleagues publicly record their dissent, as in this case, that does not necessarily reveal which justices voted for or against the petition in closed conference.”

Voces de la Frontera has 30 days to file a brief in the case. The court has not yet scheduled oral arguments in the case.

None of the five sheriffs’ offices named in the lawsuit immediately responded to requests for comment.

“We are reviewing the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s order and evaluating our next steps in this litigation,” Milwaukee attorney Sam Hall, who is representing all five sheriffs, wrote in an email Wednesday evening. “We are confident, however, that Wisconsin sheriffs who honor ICE detainers do so fully within the bounds of Wisconsin law and the federal legal framework governing immigration enforcement.”

Wisconsin Watch is a nonprofit, nonpartisan newsroom. Subscribe to our newsletters for original stories and our Friday news roundup.

Wisconsin Supreme Court to weigh sheriffs’ cooperation with ICE is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Stacey Murillo Martinez arrived at the Fond du Lac County courthouse in June to pay a $1,500 cash bond for her husband, Miguel Murillo Martinez, as he sat in jail facing drunken driving, bail jumping and firearms charges. 

Scraping the funds together was no small feat. Stacey lives on a fixed income, so Miguel’s boss chipped in. She expected the court to eventually return the $1,500. Bond is meant to serve as collateral to incentivize defendants to show up for their court dates, as she believed Miguel would. 

She did not know U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers would wait inside the Fond du Lac County Jail later that day to take Miguel, an immigrant from Honduras, into their custody. 

Five months later, Miguel still sits in an ICE facility near Terre Haute, Indiana. His detention caused him to miss a court date in September, prompting the Fond du Lac County judge to issue a bench warrant for his arrest. 

“They didn’t tell me, ‘You’re guilty’ or ‘You’re not guilty,’ ” he said, his voice muffled and distorted by the facility’s phone system. 

“I don’t know what’s going to happen,” Stacey said in early November, referring to the fate of her husband and the bail money – three times the monthly rent for the couple’s double-wide in a Fond du Lac manufactured home park. 

ICE records list more than 130 arrests at county jails in Wisconsin between January and July 2025. Nearly 40% were awaiting a ruling in their first criminal case.

While defendants sit in ICE custody, their criminal cases generally continue without them — sometimes with no explanation of their absence to the court. As ICE ramps up its enforcement efforts nationwide, Wisconsin courts are increasingly left with loose ends: defendants without their day in court, victims without a chance to testify and thousands of dollars in forfeited bail paid by family, friends and employers.

“If I get out, I’m going back to my house, and then I have to appear in county court,” Miguel said. 

Miguel is not the only recent example: ICE picked up his nephew, Junior Murillo, at the Fond du Lac County Jail in October as he faced charges for disorderly conduct and domestic abuse.

The Fond du Lac County Jail has transferred 10 people into ICE custody this year, Sheriff Ryan Waldschmidt said. His county is among 15 Wisconsin local governments to have signed agreements with ICE to assist in identifying and apprehending unauthorized immigrants. These are often called 287(g) agreements, referencing the section of the federal Immigration and Nationality Act authorizing the program. 

Fond du Lac is also among the more than two dozen Wisconsin counties participating in the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, through which the Department of Justice partially reimburses incarceration costs for agencies that share data on unauthorized immigrants in their custody. Fond du Lac County received nearly $25,000 through the program in fiscal year 2024, according to Waldschmidt.

Fond du Lac County District Attorney Eric Toney said ICE has been “very easy for us to communicate and work with,” and his prosecutors inform judges if a defendant is arrested in the courthouse. Waldschmidt noted that while his office communicates with prosecutors about inmates in county custody with ICE holds, it lacks a written policy requiring them to notify prosecutors of handoffs to ICE. 

Criminal and immigration courts collide

Wisconsin courts do not consistently track whether a defendant has entered ICE custody, but multiple Wisconsin defense attorneys told Wisconsin Watch that immigration authorities frequently arrest defendants shortly after they post bail. 

“The judge will issue a $500 cash bond, somebody in the family will post it before I’m able to tell them, ‘please don’t,’ and the client will get transferred into immigration custody, where they’re really not able to make the appearance in circuit court,” said Kate Drury, a Waupaca-based criminal defense and immigration attorney.

In rare cases, prosecutors work with ICE to extradite defendants from detention centers in other states – or, even rarer, from other countries. Doing so is complicated and expensive, especially for smaller counties.

Toney said his office can’t justify expenses for bringing any out-of-state defendant back to prosecute lower-level cases, such as driving without a license. 

Dane County District Attorney Ismael Ozanne is similarly reluctant to spend thousands to extradite defendants from faraway detention facilities. “If it’s a misdemeanor retail theft (charge), let’s say, and the person is in California, that extradition cost may be $5,000,” he said. “We’re probably not going to spend $5,000 or bring that person back.”

Ozanne’s office did, however, successfully fight for custody of a Honduran woman accused of killing two teenagers while driving drunk on Highway I-90 north of Madison in July. ICE detained Noelia Saray Martinez Avila, 30, after her attorney posted a $250,000 bond to release her from the Dane County jail in August. Martinez Avila is scheduled to appear in Dane County court in December.

Defendants in ICE custody can sometimes appear for Wisconsin court hearings via video call, though some attorneys report struggling to schedule those from immigration detention centers. 

“Jails and private prisons that operate immigration detention facilities aren’t super focused or motivated in helping defendants make their scheduled court appearances,” Drury said.

When a defendant misses a court date, Toney’s office typically requests a bench warrant and moves to schedule a bail forfeiture hearing — regardless of whether ICE detention caused the absence, he said. 

Making exceptions for ICE detainees would mean “treating somebody differently because of their immigration status,” Toney said. Still, attorneys in his office can exercise their own discretion when deciding whether to seek a warrant or bail forfeiture, he added. The prosecutor responsible for Junior Murillo’s case, for instance, did not request that the court forfeit his bail after his ICE arrest.

Ozanne argued against forfeiting defendants’ bail if they miss a court date while in ICE custody. 

“It wasn’t their unwillingness to show up” that prevented them from appearing in court, he said, adding that his office would be willing to return bail money to whomever posted it on the defendant’s behalf.

“The problem is that we don’t necessarily know” whether a person is in custody, Ozanne added. While he, like Toney, has reported no difficulties communicating with ICE, the agency doesn’t proactively inform his office when it arrests immigrants with active cases in Dane County. 

ICE did not respond to emailed questions from Wisconsin Watch.

Mindy Nolan, a Milwaukee-based attorney who specializes in the interaction between criminal cases and immigration status, said judges generally issue warrants for defendants in ICE custody to keep their criminal cases alive if ICE releases them or they return to the country after deportation. 

“Over the years, what I’ve heard from judges is (that) if the person is present in the United States in the future, they could be picked up on the state court warrant,” she said.

Hearings without defendants

Wisconsin law gives courts at least 30 days to decide whether to forfeit a defendant’s bail. 

“The default assumption seems to be that the immigrant could appear and the statute places the burden on the defendant to prove that it was impossible for them to appear,” Drury said. “But how does the defendant meet that burden when they’re being held in immigration custody, transferred all over the country, potentially transferred outside the United States?”

Wisconsin courts have held more than 2,700 bail forfeiture hearings thus far in 2025, though the state’s count does not provide details on the reasons for defendants’ absence. If the defendant misses the hearing, the defendant’s attorney or those who paid the bail can challenge the forfeiture by demonstrating that the absence was unavoidable. 

On a Friday morning in late October, a Racine County judge issued a half-dozen bail forfeiture orders in just minutes. The court had scheduled a translator for most of the cases, and she sat alone at the defense table, occasionally scanning the room in case any defendants slipped in at the last minute.

“The problem is getting someone at the bond forfeiture hearings to assert those arguments on behalf of clients,” Drury said. Public defenders are often stretched thin, and family members may be unaware of upcoming hearings. Court records indicate Miguel Murillo lacks a defense attorney assigned to his case in Fond du Lac, leaving only Stacey to argue against bail forfeiture. 

Such hearings tend to be more substantial when attorneys are present, boosting the likelihood of bail money being returned. 

Miguel Murillo’s case does not involve an alleged victim, meaning forfeited bail would go to Fond du Lac County. Court costs typically exceed the value of forfeited bail, Toney said. 

When cases involve alleged victims, Wisconsin law requires that courts use forfeited bail for victim restitution – even without a conviction.

What’s missing are judicial findings that the defendant is responsible for the alleged actions and caused suffering to the victim, Drury said. 

“Without a conviction, I don’t understand how you maintain that policy and the presumption of innocence, which is such an important constitutional cornerstone of this country.”

Immigration arrests often throw a wrench in the gears of the criminal justice system, Ozanne said. 

“It’s most problematic for us when the person hasn’t gone through their due process,” he said. “We have victims… who don’t really get the benefit of the process or have the ability to communicate with the courts about what they think should happen.”

“In a sense,” he added, “that person has a get-out-of-jail-free card.” 

Months in ICE detention 

Miguel Murillo left Honduras a decade ago, initially settling in Houston. While in Texas, he says he survived a shooting and sought, but never obtained, a U-visa, which provides temporary legal status to victims of certain crimes. 

The shooting prompted him to head north to Wisconsin, where he found construction work and married Stacey, a lifelong Wisconsinite. Court records mark occasional run-ins with law enforcement and misdemeanors over the last five years, culminating in the April 2025 charges that preceded his ICE arrest. 

Stacey, who is receiving treatment for breast cancer, relied on her husband to keep their household afloat. In his absence, she said, “I have to beg, plead, and borrow to get any assistance.” 

“Right now, as I go through this situation… there’s no one to take care of her,” Miguel told Wisconsin Watch. The couple hope that argument will sway a Chicago immigration court judge to release him from ICE custody. The court held its final hearing on his order of removal case in late October, Stacey said, but has yet to issue a ruling.

Junior’s case progressed far more quickly. After his arrest in October, he spent just over a week in ICE custody before immigration authorities put him on a plane to Honduras. 

Miguel, on the other hand, has spent roughly five months in various ICE detention facilities. He was scheduled to appear by video in Fond du Lac County court Thursday morning. He never joined the call. 

“I don’t know what happened,” he wrote to Wisconsin Watch afterwards. “I was waiting and (facility staff) didn’t call me.”

Stacey couldn’t attend the hearing for health reasons, and Miguel has yet to secure an attorney for his Fond du Lac case. Court records do not indicate whether the prosecutor requested forfeiture of his $1,500 bail.

Wisconsin Watch is a nonprofit, nonpartisan newsroom. Subscribe to our newsletters for original stories and our Friday news roundup.

Courts left with loose ends when ICE detains criminal defendants is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.