It’s tempting to begin a story about Emily Sterk with an anecdote about her advocacy around mass incarceration.
Or with her reflections on how her privilege plays into that work. Or with an exploration of how her religious faith intertwines with her concern for those caught up in the criminal justice system.
But she also loves musicals – and is a little embarrassed to admit how much she enjoys “Wicked.” She has a beloved tortoiseshell cat named Stevie and is fond of puzzles.
Having said all that, people are starting to notice how good she is at what she does, said Krissie Fung, associate director of Milwaukee Turners, the state’s oldest civic organization, where Sterk is completing a fellowship.
“People have heard her speak in public, and folks are beginning to look to her opinion,” Fung said.
This ability to gain trust within criminal justice reform circles is especially valuable as the organization grows, said Emilio De Torre, executive director of Turners.
“Having someone who can help us build stronger networks, have an informed leader in these different rooms – it expands our ability to educate others who don’t understand this and to empower people who are impacted but unsure of what to do,” De Torre said.
From the academy
During her final year of graduate school at Pennsylvania State University, Sterk – in her spare time – taught in two correctional institutions.
“That was one of the first times I felt like, ‘Oh, well, I should be doing something about this,’” she said.
Sterk arrived in Milwaukee last fall as a Leading Edge Fellow with the American Council of Learned Societies, a national program that places Ph.D. graduates at justice-focused nonprofits.
At Turners, she conducts research, participates in advocacy and develops policy ideas geared toward confronting mass incarceration.
‘Watching the watchers’
One area Sterk has focused on is civilian oversight of law enforcement.
At an April 15 meeting of the Milwaukee County Board’s Judiciary, Law Enforcement and General Services Committee, Sterk testified in support of a civilian board that would oversee the Milwaukee County Sheriff’s Office.
She told committee members that, in order to be effective and independent, such a board must have the authority to hire and fire law enforcement officers – including the sheriff – and have policymaking authority.
Sterk pointed to a 2024 audit of the county jail that, she said, “unearthed deeply troubling policies, practices and procedures that have long since been ingrained in the facility and its staff.”
She highlighted an instance in which an officer accused of misconduct was assigned to respond to the grievance filed against them.
With emotion in her voice, Sterk reminded supervisors that the audit devoted just three sentences to a suicide attempt that auditors personally witnessed during their visit.
Two weeks after this committee meeting, Sterk presented to the Milwaukee Fire and Police Commission the findings of a six-month monitoring period of the commission’s activity – “watching the watchers,” as Fung put it.
The commission was significantly restructured in July 2023 after Wisconsin Act 12 stripped its ability to shape police policy, shifting that power to police and fire department chiefs.
However, Sterk is not hostile or self-righteous in her criticism. Care and sincerity are at the center of her approach – even for the offices and bodies she’s criticizing.
At the Fire and Police Commission presentation, multiple commissioners thanked the Turners and echoed the call to improve public engagement.
Currently, Sterk is fostering a collaboration on jail-based voting between the Turners and the League of Women Voters of Milwaukee County. Here, too, her thoughtfulness has left its mark.
“The first thing she talked to me about was educating people about having respect for people who are incarcerated,” said Gail Sklodowska, the second vice president of advocacy and action for the league. “Like how we refer to them, how we talk about them. And I went, ‘Wow, I never even thought of that as a place we should start.’
“But she’s right.”
This combination of rigor, respect and resolve is rooted in deeper values, said Carlos de la Torre, Sterk’s partner and a rector at a church in Chicago.
“Amidst the work of justice, of restoration, of reconciliation, of liberation,” he said, “Emily knows that there’s a place for beauty in all this.
“The point of all this work is to offer people access to a good life, to the beauty of this world, to be free in creation.”
Sterk’s fellowship ends September 2026, but she is open to staying in Milwaukee after that – and so are others.
“I would love for us – and for Milwaukee – to keep her,” Fung said.
The Social Development Commission, or SDC, is asking the federal government to reverse a decision made by the state that could alter the anti-poverty agency’s funding options.
Here’s what we know.
The community action decision
The Wisconsin Department of Children and Families decided in May to remove the SDC’s community action agency status, effective July 3.
Although the department believes SDC has not been operating anti-poverty services since it shut down in April 2024, despite reopening in December, SDC’s leaders have said the state did not follow the proper process to make this decision.
Without this designation, SDC will not be eligible for a Community Services Block Grant, which is a small portion of its budget but significant to its efforts to pay back employees and rebuild its service programs.
How does a federal review work?
When a state decides to rescind community action status or the related block grant funding from a local agency, the agency can request a review from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services within 30 days.
SDC submitted a request for a review of the state’s community action decision to the department on June 9, citing concerns about due process.
The Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS, will evaluate if the state’s determination process followed the guidanceon the termination or reduction of funding for entities eligible for the Community Services Block Grant, according to a spokesperson from the department.
The Division of Community Assistance, which is part of the Office of Community Services within the federal department, oversees block grant funding for community action agencies.
“I think that HHS is concerned about the process that was used to de-designate SDC, and so my expectation is that they will be talking to the state about the process,” said William Sulton, SDC’s attorney.
The Department of Children and Families received notification on June 11 from the Office of Community Services that SDC requested a review, but did not receive the request itself, according to Gina Paige, communications director for the department.
The review will be completed within 90 days of receiving all required documentation from the state, according to federal law. If not completed in the 90-day time frame, the state’s decision will be upheld.
As part of the request, SDC is asking the Department of Health and Human Services for direct financial assistance.
According to the CSBG Act, if a state violates the de-designation process – by terminating or reducing funding of an eligible entity before the state hearing and the secretary’s review – the Health and Human Services secretary is authorized to provide financial assistance to the entity affected until the violation is corrected.
SDC’s concerns
SDC raised two main concerns with the state’s determination process in the request, based on state and federal laws.
The first concern is that the public hearing on SDC’s community action status, held by the Department of Children and Families on April 4, did not meet the legal requirements of a “hearing on the record.”
“You’re supposed to be permitted to call witnesses and present evidence,” Sulton said. “… We were given seven minutes to make a speech, and that was it.”
SDC also says that both the Department of Children and Families’ secretary and the legislative bodies of the city of Milwaukee and Milwaukee County would have to sign off on the decision, based on a state statute that requires the legislative body that initially granted the agency community action status to approve rescinding it.
“They didn’t go out and get position statements from the city and the county’s legislative bodies,” Sulton said.
The department did not comment on these claims. (Paige previously said it has worked closely with the Office of Community Services and Milwaukee County to determine the process needed to move forward with de-designating SDC.)
Although Milwaukee County’s Office of Corporation Counsel submitted a letter to say it found no records of the Board of Supervisors taking action on SDC’s status as a community action agency, Sulton said that doesn’t mean there are no records.
He argues that this provision of the law, added in 1983, was put in place to protect SDC from arbitrary state action.
Funding deadline
In May, three state lawmakers asked SDC to consider voluntarily de-designating, which would allow the state and Milwaukee County to more quickly find an interim service provider to use SDC’s allocated funds in Milwaukee County.
The $1.18 million in 2024 block grant funding could be recouped by the federal government if not spent by Sept. 30, 2025, according to the Department of Children and Families.
However, Sulton said when he reached out to the Department of Health and Human Services before filing the review, an employee told him the 2024 funds had to be obligated by 2026.
“To the extent that anybody has the impression that this money has to be obligated by September or it’ll be lost, HHS says it’s not the case,” he said.
States and subrecipients usually have two years to distribute funds, but it depends on state-specific policies, according to HHS.
The state’s Sept. 30 deadline marks two years after the beginning of the 2024 fiscal year in October 2023, according to Paige.
Though Paige said that SDC’s request for review is perpetuating the lack of services in Milwaukee County, she added that the department plans to seek a six-month liquidation extension from the federal government.
“It’s quite possible that we’re gonna be on a really tight timeline to get that money out the door, so that’s why we’re hoping that we can work with the federal government and see if they can allow us an extension to expend it a little bit longer,” Paige said.
Board member changes
The SDC board added two commissioners in May – Milwaukee Public Schools appointed Michael Harris, and the Interfaith Conference of Greater Milwaukee appointed Peter Fetzer, an attorney at Foley & Lardner LLP.
In the last seven months, the SDC board has expanded from three to 10 commissioners, thanks to several appointments to vacant seats. The board is designed to have 18 members at full capacity.
Commissioner Lucero Ayala’s term has ended, according to Sulton. Ayala was nominated and selected last year to fill the remainder of Serina Chavez’s term as an elected commissioner.
As Wisconsin’s prison population climbs toward pre-pandemic levels, Senate Bill 153 seeks to expand alternatives to incarceration.
Wisconsin’s Treatment Alternatives and Diversion program was established in 2005 to provide counties with funding to create programs to divert adults with nonviolent criminal charges into community-based treatment for substance abuse.
Senate Bill 153 would formally expand the scope of these programs to explicitly include individuals with mental health issues.
Access to more funding
While some counties, including Milwaukee, already provide some diversion options for individuals with mental health needs, Senate Bill 153 could allow Milwaukee County to access funding not currently available.
“The Milwaukee County District Attorney’s Office has always supported the expansion of the Treatment Alternatives and Diversion program to include those individuals with severe and persistent mental health issues in addition to those with alcohol and drug dependency issues,” said Jeffrey Altenburg, Milwaukee County’s chief deputy district attorney.
He added that such an expansion would allow the district attorney’s office to focus most of its traditional prosecutorial resources on violent crime.
Bipartisan support
State Sen. André Jacque, R-New Franken, who co-authored the bill, said that the legislation enjoys broad bipartisan support as well as backing from those who work inside the criminal justice system.
“Folks that I’ve talked to – whether it’s probation and parole, law enforcement more generally – these are folks that see that it works because you don’t see repeat involvement in the criminal justice system,” he said.
“It is transformative and uplifting when you see the changes that people are able to make in their lives.”
Marshall Jones, currently incarcerated at Fox Lake Correctional Institution, hopes more lawmakers have that sort of mindset.
“If politicians were more proactive in helping people in the system address the underlying issues they have, then more people will be in a position to experience lasting, genuine change,” Jones said.
Research shows that treating the underlying causes of criminal behavior helps individuals rebuild their lives after incarceration and prevents future offenses.
“Most people who have mental health issues are already running or hiding from a fear they have,” said Aaron Nicgorski, a patient at a Wisconsin Department of Health Services facility.
“Providing treatment says ‘Hey, we understand you have an issue, here are some programs to get you on a path to a better future’ versus ‘Hey, we’re gonna put you in a cage to think about what you’ve done.’”
Diversion vs. incarceration
Over time, the criminal justice system has recognized that many people commit crimes because of economic or psychological factors rather than some sort of character flaw.
Diversion – the process by which people get “diverted” into voluntary programs and away from formal prosecution – has been used to address these factors.
“The whole idea is to divert them from the traditional system and get them placed with, hopefully, programs that can break the cycle of any criminal behavior,” said Nick Sayner, co-founder and chief executive officer of JusticePoint, a Milwaukee-based nonprofit organization that provides diversion-related services among other criminal justice programs.
Breaking that cycle is better for the public’s safety as well as the safety of the person being diverted, said Mark Rice, coordinator for the Wisconsin Transformational Justice Campaign at WISDOM, a statewide faith-based organization.
It’s also much more cost-effective to treat people in communities rather than to incarcerate them, Rice added.
Incarceration is not an experience that lends itself to improving a person’s mental health, he said.
“One man attempted to commit suicide; several other men had to be put on suicide watch; others mutilated themselves,” said Rice, referring to his time in the special needs unit at the Milwaukee Secure Detention Facility.
What’s next?
On May 8, the Senate Committee on Judiciary and Public Safety unanimously recommended Senate Bill 153 for passage. It is now awaiting scheduling for a vote by the full Senate.
Despite arrests by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents at the Milwaukee County Courthouse complex, many county officials want residents to know that courthouse services remain available regardless of citizenship status.
Israel Ramón, the Milwaukee County register of deeds, sees access to his office at the courthouse as a fundamental right of every resident in the county.
“I work for 950,000 people,” Ramón said.
What is a register of deeds?
When people think of essential county services, the register of deeds might not come to mind. But Ramón has a way of making his office sound impossible to live without.
If people want to drive a car, prove legal identity, apply for Social Security or access food benefits in Milwaukee County, among other tasks, they need documents maintained by Ramón’s office.
When Wisconsin became a state in 1848, the register of deeds was established as one of a handful of constitutional county offices – positions created by the state constitution and filled by local elections.
Like a sheriff or a judge, people needed a register of deeds to help organize aspects of their daily lives.
It’s the same today, Ramón said.
“Most of the time, people don’t think that my office impacts their lives. But from birth to death and throughout their tenure in the county – my office does it all.”
Ramón’s office issues birth, death, marriage and divorce certificates – documents known as vital records.
His office also records and archives real property documents for Milwaukee County. Real property includes real estate – the physical land and buildings – as well as the legal rights associated with owning, using and transferring it.
Altogether, Ramón said his office maintains an archive of about 12 million documents.
Access to courthouse complex
All residents of Milwaukee County, Ramón argues, deserve access to these records – regardless of race, ethnicity, sexual orientation or immigration status.
If, for example, an undocumented mother needs to obtain a birth certificate for her U.S.-born son to enroll him in school, she has the same right to that document as any other parent, according to Ramón.
These arrests also threaten access to the full range of services offered in the complex, said Alan Chavoya, outreach chair of the Milwaukee Alliance Against Racism & Political Repression, a community group critical of the immigration policies of the Trump administration.
“People don’t realize that this complex actually houses so many different services,” Chavoya said. “The county supervisors are here. People pay some taxes here. I served jury duty here.”
“A restraining order – you’re supposed to be able to get help here to file one,” he added. “People who might need one but have mixed status probably aren’t going to come here to get one, right?”
ICE at the courthouse
The Milwaukee County Board of Supervisors adopted a resolution on April 24 calling on the county executive, chief judge and sheriff to work together to ensure access to courthouse services.
However, the resolution does not impose any new restrictions on immigration enforcement.
Ramón remains focused on what he can do. He said he will ask anyone not conducting official business in his office to leave, including ICE agents without a judicial warrant.
A judicial warrant allows officers to make arrests in both private and public areas, while administrative warrants – typically used for immigration-related arrests – permit arrests only in public areas.
As a constitutional officer, the register of deeds has authority over how services are provided, in accordance with state and federal laws, said a spokesperson from the Milwaukee County Executive’s Office.
Failing to remove barriers that prevent people from accessing his office, including fear of immigration enforcement, would mean failing to uphold the oath of office he took, Ramón said.
This includes legal documents such as power-of-attorney forms, which people fearing family separation can use to ensure someone else is able to legally care for their children or manage their finances.
But, again, Ramón makes clear that this service is for every resident of the county.
In addition to what he sees as his public duties, he draws on his personal background to underscore his commitment to accessibility.
He told NNS he is a U.S. citizen born in Mexico, the first Latino constitutional officer in Wisconsin and one of the first openly LGBTQ+ ones.
Gesturing to the LGBTQ+, U.S. and Mexican flags displayed on his bookshelf, Ramón said, “That’s who I am.”
For more information
Milwaukee County residents can request records in person, online or by phone, depending on the type of record.
Protesters gather outside of the Milwaukee FBI office to speak out against the arrest of Milwaukee Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan (Photo by Isiah Holmes/Wisconsin Examiner)
Prosecutors for the Trump administration filed a brief Monday requesting that a federal judge not dismiss the government’s indictment against Milwaukee County Judge Hannah Dugan.
Dugan faces criminal charges after Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, along with agents from the Drug Enforcement Agency and FBI, arrived in the Milwaukee County Courthouse April 18 to arrest 31-year-old Eduardo Flores-Ruiz for being in the country illegally.
Flores-Ruiz was set to appear in Dugan’s courtroom that day for a status hearing on misdemeanor charges against him. When Dugan learned that the agents were outside her courtroom, she confronted them and learned they only had an administrative warrant, which was issued by an agency official and not a judge. An administrative warrant doesn’t allow agents to enter private spaces in the courthouse such as Dugan’s courtroom.
Later, while the agents were waiting for Flores-Ruiz in the hallway outside the main courtroom door, Dugan sent him and his attorney out a side door into the hallway. One of the agents rode down the elevator with Flores-Ruiz and he was later arrested on the street.
Dugan was charged with concealing an individual to prevent arrest, a misdemeanor, and obstruction, which is a felony. Last month, Dugan’s attorneys filed a motion to dismiss the case against her, arguing she was acting in her official capacity as a judge and therefore immune from prosecution for her actions and that the federal government is impinging on the state of Wisconsin’s authority to operate its court system.
The case drew national attention, with Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and FBI Director Kash Patel both making public statements about Dugan’s arrest before she’d even been indicted. Legal experts have questioned the strength of the federal government’s case and accused Trump officials of grandstanding to make a political point.
In the Monday filing, federal prosecutors argued that dismissing the case would ignore previously established law that allows judges to face criminal charges.
“Such a ruling would give state court judges carte blanche to interfere with valid law enforcement actions by federal agents in public hallways of a courthouse, and perhaps even beyond,” the prosecutors argued. “Dugan’s desired ruling would, in essence, say that judges are ‘above the law,’ and uniquely entitled to interfere with federal law enforcement.”
It’s the kind of exchange that criminal justice data is meant to clarify: a police official insisting that law enforcement practices are fair and targeted, while a city commissioner questions whether those practices contribute to racial disparities.
“If I’m understanding what you’re saying correctly, it’s the police department position – not that you are policing in a racially motivated way, but just that it’s Black youth that are committing more crimes,” asked Krissie Fung, a commissioner on the Milwaukee Fire and Police Commission during a recent meeting.
“I would not say Black youth are committing more crimes,” responded Heather Hough, chief of staff for the Milwaukee Police Department. “I would say that when we are arresting suspects, we are ensuring reasonable suspicion or probable cause, whether or not the identity of those youth is one race or another.”
Such misinterpretations have been common, said Kelly Pethke, administrator for Milwaukee County Children, Youth and Family Services, which hosts the dashboard.
“There’s been a lot of misunderstanding,” Pethke said. “We are in the process of making some changes.”
The point of the dashboard
The dashboard was designed to provide real-time transparency about Milwaukee County youths in secure custody.
“We didn’t have a good, single place to go to really look at the scope of the child incarceration problem,” said Rep. Ryan Clancy, D-Milwaukee, who helped move the dashboard through the Milwaukee County Board of Supervisors when he served as a supervisor.
But the dashboard doesn’t yet offer a complete picture, including when it comes to race.
Because of this limitation, conversations about racial disparities in Milwaukee’s youth justice system – like those during the Fire and Police Commission meeting – are incomplete.
What’s missing?
To understand what’s missing from the dashboard, it helps to know that Milwaukee youths in secure custody can fall into three categories.
Some youths are held at the county-run Vel R. Phillips Youth and Family Justice Center for lesser offenses, remaining fully under Milwaukee County’s responsibility.
Others, deemed serious juvenile offenders, are in the custody of the state and housed at state-run youth prisons such as Lincoln Hills School for Boys and Copper Lake School for Girls.
A third group consists of youth who are the county’s responsibility but are housed in state-run facilities. The dashboard currently only shows racial data for this third group.
Pethke provided NNS with point-in-time data that helps fill out the racial picture of youths in county custody. As of May 19, there were 113 youths in the county detention center: 92 were Black, 12 were Hispanic, seven were white, and two were Asian.
Persistent problem
Even with the updated county data, overrepresentation of youths of color – especially Black youth – in the criminal justice system continues, said Monique Liston.
She’s the founder and chief strategist of UBUNTU Research and Evaluation, a Milwaukee-based strategic education organization.
“The disproportionality is still the same for me. Still the same flag,” she said.
Liston doesn’t dispute Hough’s claim that Milwaukee police are acting legally and fairly. Still, she argued, the city’s criminal justice system is structured in such a way that disproportionately targets Black youths.
“Black youth are more surveilled. That means you’re going to end up with more incidents.”
It’s a cycle, Liston said – data collected on these incidents presents an imbalanced picture of who is committing crime.
That picture reinforces the notion that more money and policing are needed to address crime by Black youths, resulting in continued – or escalated – monitoring, she said.
Yes, Liston wants to see clearer and more complete data from the dashboard. But she also wants that data to be used for real accountability and change.
“Whatever we measure becomes a priority,” she said. “The cycle is not disrupted if we don’t think about the data.”
MPD and root causes
Hough does not dispute the county’s data and acknowledges that racial disparities exist in Milwaukee’s criminal justice system. But she told NNS she is confident the city’s police department is not the source of those disparities.
“We get a call for service, and we respond,” she said.
Hough emphasized that the department holds officers accountable if they fail to meet standards of reasonable suspicion and probable cause.
She also said that the police department – and Milwaukee Police Chief Jeffrey Norman – are committed to working with the community to address the root causes of the disparities highlighted by the county’s dashboard.
The state of Wisconsin is rescinding the Social Development Commission’s status as Milwaukee County’s community action agency, a move that puts the SDC’s ability to offer critical services to the community in jeopardy.
The anti-poverty agency has held that designation for over 60 years. Without the status, SDC is not eligible for key federal block grant funding for its services.
In a letter sent Friday to the SDC board, Wisconsin Department of Children and Families Secretary Jeff Pertl wrote that as of July 3, SDC’s status as Milwaukee County’s community action agency will end and that the agency will no longer be eligible for federal Community Services Block Grant funding.
“SDC has been a beloved institution in Milwaukee, positively impacting community members through a long history of programs and services,” Pertl said in a statement. “As such, the decision to de-designate them as a community action agency was not taken lightly, but it is clear that we must turn the page to resume these vital services.”
The decision comes after representatives of Milwaukee County said earlier this month that they planned to move from SDC as its community action agency.
“The most important thing is to make sure that Milwaukee County residents are served, and this missive from DCF ensures that they will not be served,” said William Sulton, SDC’s attorney.
Now, the SDC board can request a review with the federal government within 30 days or choose to voluntarily de-designate.
The decision
The department decided to terminate SDC’s designation because it believes SDC has not been operating anti-poverty services since it abruptly shut down in April 2024, despite reopening in December.
According to the letter, SDC has not completed its federally required audit, verified sustainable funding sources, addressed outstanding financial obligations or corrected other deficiencies the department identified.
Board members and current and former employees of SDC advocated for the agency to keep its community action status at a hearing last month.
SDC was created by state, county and city governments but functions outside of them.
Pertl acknowledged the commitment of former staff members who performed unpaid service in support of SDC’s work and the board’s desire to restore SDC in his letter.
“There is also an array of community members and leaders who contend SDC is unable to carry out its vital mission in light of the financial mismanagement, pending foreclosures, outstanding debts, eroded infrastructure and lack of urgency in finding resolution to these practical service delivery challenges,” Pertl wrote in the letter.
SDC provided a range of services to help low-income residents, such as tax support, career advancement, senior companionship and rent assistance.
What happens next?
Going forward, SDC has the option to request a review by the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services within 30 days.
It could also voluntarily relinquish its community action status, which would allow the department and Milwaukee County to more quickly find an interim service provider to use SDC’s allocated funds for the year.
The letter noted that President Donald Trump’s administration proposed eliminating block grant funding to community action agencies in his fiscal year 2026 budget, making the program’s future uncertain.
The Department of Children and Families can now start conversations with other eligible entities, but cannot take over the funds intended for SDC until SDC’s de-designation is effective, according to Gina Paige, communications director for the department.
Sulton said the board will have to meet to determine SDC’s next actions, but he is concerned that the state, Milwaukee County and the city will choose to stop funding anti-poverty services.
“Really what this act amounts to is a withdrawing of their commitment to pursue anti-poverty programming,” he said.
The recent arrest of Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan – who is accused of obstructing a federal immigration arrest inside the Milwaukee County Courthouse – has intensified concerns over immigration enforcement and sparked questions about what rights individuals have when encountering federal agents.
Here’s what to know.
What is obstruction?
Obstruction occurs when a person prevents or makes it more difficult for officers to perform their duty – a definition that covers a broad range of actions, said Benjamin Van Severen, a Milwaukee-based criminal defense attorney and founder of Van Severen Law Office.
Obstruction can include physically interfering with an arrest, such as refusing to comply during a traffic stop.
“Let’s say you’re in a vehicle, and law enforcement does a traffic stop and then you refuse to unlock the doors – that could be obstruction,” said Van Severen.
Obstruction also includes providing false information to law enforcement.
According to the criminal complaint, Dugan obstructed U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents by escorting the individual they intended to arrest into a nonpublic area of the courthouse after requesting the agents go to the chief judge.
A related but distinct offense from obstruction is known as harboring.
Harboring generally refers to knowingly assisting someone to remain in the United States unlawfully – typically by hiding, transporting or supporting the person in order to help avoid detention.
Knowledge and intent are critical components of the charge.
“You have to be acting with the conscious purpose of aiding their intention to remain here illegally,” said Ronald Kuby, a civil rights attorney familiar with similar cases.
“If, let’s say, Ahmed says to his neighbor, ‘Look, I need $150 to get a bus ticket to go to Canada because ICE is going to arrest me,’ it’s perfectly fine to give Ahmed that 150 bucks to go to Canada,” he said. “He may not buy that bus ticket to Canada. He may buy a bus ticket to, you know, Indianapolis, but that’s not on you.”
Different types of warrants
Understanding the difference between types of warrants is crucial in understanding immigration enforcement, particularly when it comes to where these warrants permit officers to go.
An administrative warrant permits immigration officers to arrest someone in a public place, such as a sidewalk or bus station. However, it does not allow entry into a private residence without consent.
Judicial warrants, by contrast, are signed by a judge and can authorize arrests in both public and private spaces.
Despite the differences, both administrative and judicial warrants are lawful tools that permit arrests in immigration cases, Van Severen said.
However, there are different rights that can be asserted depending on the type of warrant.
If law enforcement presents an administrative warrant, people inside a private residence have the right to refuse entry.
“If it’s not signed by a judge, they can’t come into your home without permission,” said R. Timothy Muth, staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, or ACLU, of Wisconsin. “Ask to see the warrant. Have them slip it under the door or show it to you at your window. Look at the signature line – does it say ‘magistrate judge’?”
Other rights
Regardless of citizenship status, everyone in the U.S. has certain constitutional protections, including the right to remain silent and to speak to an attorney.
However, if the arrest is for an immigration violation and not a criminal offense, the government does not have to provide a lawyer, explained Ruby De León, staff attorney at Voces de la Frontera, an immigrant advocacy organization in Milwaukee.
Documenting activities related to immigration enforcement, such as filming and noting names and badge numbers, is also legal so long as it does not interfere with law enforcement actions, said Muth.
If people are not citizens but have documentation that permits them to stay in the country – such as a green card – they are required to keep that documentation with them, Muth said.
Muth recommends carrying documentation showing continuous presence in the country for more than two years, such as a lease agreement, pay stubs or utility bill in the person’s name.
Individuals who cannot prove they’ve been physically present in the U.S. for at least two years may be subject to expedited removal – a process that allows the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, which oversees ICE, to deport someone without a hearing before an immigration judge.
Advocates recommend ensuring documentation is current, applying for passports for U.S.-born children and pursuing citizenship or legal status if eligible, perhaps through an employer or family member.
Voces suggests completing power-of-attorney forms to prepare for potential family separation. If a person is detained or deported, these forms allow a designated individual to make medical, financial or child care decisions on the person’s behalf.
Forward Latino, a nonprofit organization that advocates for the civil rights of Latinos throughout the country, has created a tool kit regarding potential family separation.
Other resources
A city of Milwaukee municipal ID can serve as a form of identification for city residents who cannot get state identification.
Voces maintains a list of immigration, workers’ rights and family attorneys it deems trustworthy.
Voces also provides various workshops and clinics, including Know Your Rights training, citizenship classes and legal clinics. For citizenship classes, call (414) 236-0415 or email newamerican@vdlf.org. For other services or questions, call (414) 643-1620.
In any community, the role of the medical examiner is vital.
Medical examiners — or coroners, in the nearly half of Wisconsin’s 72 counties that have them as an alternative — determine the cause and manner of death, support the criminal justice system and track data to identify trends that can impact public health and safety.
For me and other Milwaukee-area journalists, the insights provided by the Milwaukee County Medical Examiner’s Office are integral to our coverage, providing crucial details and important context. Among the recent examples where the level of openness has played a key role are the COVID-19 pandemic, the tragic deaths of three men due to extreme cold last January and the high-profile case of D’Vontaye Mitchell last June.
Traditionally, the office has supplied “demographic reports” as well as “narrative reports.” Demographic reports include information such as the name of the deceased, where the death occurred, and the name of a family member who was notified. Narrative reports, in contrast, delve into the circumstances surrounding each case.
“Narrative reports are particularly illustrative when compared to other available public information,” wrote David Clarey in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel in March. “Contextual information, such as whether a driver ran a red light or if a homicide resulted from a heated argument, is often missing (from demographic reports) and requires time-consuming requests from media and families alike.”
Tim Vetscher (Provided photo)
The media in Milwaukee were pleased with the level of openness we experienced from Karen Domagalski, the longtime operations manager for the Milwaukee County Medical Examiner’s Office. But when Domagalski retired on Feb. 19, the county’s medical examiner, Dr. Wieslawa Tlomak, announced a change in policy. Henceforth, she said, the office would stop sharing narrative reports until investigations were concluded and cases closed. She acknowledged that this shift represented a significant change in past practices.
Concerned by the change in policy, several news executives, including me, sent Tlomak a letter on April 4. It read, in part:
“The decision to curtail access to these preliminary findings poses a troubling scenario for our news organizations and, more importantly, for the residents of Milwaukee County. Withholding this essential information may leave the public waiting weeks, months, or even longer for basic insights into the circumstances surrounding the deaths of community members. This delay not only hampers our ability to keep the public informed but also undermines trust in the transparency of governmental processes.”
The letter noted that having access to narrative reports helps “clarify the circumstances” surrounding deaths and fosters “a better understanding among citizens about the events that impact their safety.”
Tlomak replied to our letter nearly three weeks later on April 23. Her response read, in part:
“I recognize that this shift in operational policies and procedures is new to members of the media that cover death investigations and public safety matters in Milwaukee County. After an internal review of operational policies and procedures, it became apparent that it is not within the ME’s Office mission and purpose to provide inaccurate and/or incomplete information to the public, as the disclosure of these draft details have the potential to cause significant harm to family members most affected by a death.”
Here’s my response to that: Dr. Tlomak, if your concern is releasing inaccurate information, the appropriate next step would be to correct the information rather than stopping its release altogether. I urge you to work with the journalists who rely on the reports provided by your office to develop a solution that ensures timely access to vital information without compromising the integrity of ongoing investigations.
Transparency is crucial for maintaining public trust.
Your Right to Know is a monthly column distributed by the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council (wisfoic.org), a group dedicated to open government. Tim Vetscher, a council member, is news director at TMJ4 in Milwaukee.
Wisconsin’s constitution gives the Legislature two methods for removing judges from office.
Impeachment starts with a majority Assembly vote based on “corrupt conduct in office” or commission of a crime. A two-thirds Senate vote following a Senate trial would result in removal.
“Removal by address” occurs through a two-thirds vote of each chamber, based on misconduct. The judge would have an opportunity to make a defense.
Wisconsin judges run in nonpartisan elections. Bothchambers of the Legislature have a simple Republican majority.
Republicans called for the Legislature to remove Milwaukee County Judge Hannah Dugan after the FBI arrested her April 24. She is charged with two crimes for allegedly obstructing Immigration and Customs Enforcement from arresting a criminal defendant in her courtroom.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court temporarily suspended Dugan. The Supreme Court can also remove judges for misconduct, based on a state Judicial Commission investigation.
It appears that Milwaukee County is ready to work with the state to find a new community action agency to replace the Social Development Commission, the embattled agency that has provided anti-poverty services for more than 60 years.
In an email to NNS, a spokesperson from the press office of Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley stated: “Given the urgent need for supportive services in Milwaukee County, and in light of SDC’s ongoing challenges, we stand ready to work with the Wisconsin Department of Children and Families and other local partners to identify another eligible entity or entities who can receive (Community Services Block Grant) funds and provide needed services to county residents.”
The Social Development Commission, also known as the SDC, is eligible to receive these federal block grant funds administered by the state through its status as a community action agency, which the state is considering rescinding.
The email from the county was sent in response to a question about whether the Milwaukee County Board of Supervisors and the Milwaukee Common Council are required by state law to approve any decision to rescind SDC’s designation as a community action agency.
The background
The Wisconsin Department of Children and Families, or DCF, is scheduled to make a final decision on SDC’s community action status in the coming months.
DCF held a public hearing on April 4 to discuss SDC’s designation and future. At the meeting, some SDC board members and current and former employees testified about the crucial need to maintain the agency.
The department’s leadership said SDC has not created a realistic financial plan to restart services and perform its community action duties under the law, and it continues to have financial, programmatic, operational and service delivery concerns.
SDC reopened in a limited capacity in December after abruptly shutting down in April 2024, when problems included failing to pay employees and contractors on time and using grant dollars for one program to cover costs for another.
The agency has since missed state deadlines to pay employees their owed wages and also still owes some contractors for completed work.
In addition, SDC’s property corporation, SD Properties Inc., is facing a foreclosure lawsuit and owes nearly $3 million in mortgage payments on its North Avenue buildings, according to court records.
Who’s responsible?
Jorge Franco, interim CEO of SDC and chair of its board, said Wisconsin law requires both the Common Council and County Board of Supervisors to approve a decision to de-designate SDC as a community action agency before the state can take that action.
Franco is referring to Wisconsin Statute 49.265, which states the following: “The approval of a community action agency may be rescinded but only if there is good cause and if the decision to rescind is made by both the legislative body of the county, city, village or town that granted the approval and the secretary.”
According to the organization’s former website, SDC became a community action agency in 1964, shortly after the Economic Opportunity Act created the Community Action Program.
Because SDC was established through a collaboration that involved the city, county and other organizations, there is a lack of clarity over which legislative body actually granted SDC’s approval as a community action agency.
It’s also unclear which legislative body must weigh in on the commission’s potential de-designation based on state statute.
According to a spokesperson from the Milwaukee County Executive’s Office, a review of records found that the county board and the city of Milwaukee enacted an ordinance establishing SDC as a commission, but not specifically as a community action agency.
“We have not found any records indicating that the County Board ever took any action relative to SDC’s status as a CAA,” an email from the Milwaukee County Executive Press Office said.
Because the county board did not approve SDC’s status as a community action agency, it does not have the authority to rescind that status, the Milwaukee County Executive Press Office’s email said.
Jeff Fleming, a spokesperson for Mayor Cavalier Johnson, said the city’s responsibility in the potential de-designation of SDC as a community action agency has been a topic of discussion.
“The first impression from the city side is that it was the county that ‘granted the approval,’” Fleming said in an email, referring to SDC’s status as a community action agency.
NNS also reached out to Milwaukee City Attorney Evan Goyke for comment on the issue, but he hasn’t responded.
The Department of Children and Families was also questioned about which legislative body granted SDC approval to be a community action agency.
“This is the first time the Department of Children and Families has sought to de-designate a community action agency,” said Gina Paige, communications director for DCF. “As such, we are working closely with the federal Office of Community Services and Milwaukee County to determine what the process would need to be should we move forward with de-designating SDC.”
According to Franco, the state operates under a federal mandate to provide the types of anti-poverty services that SDC had provided for decades.
He said without SDC, those services could be delayed by several years.
“The bottom line point is that infrastructure is there. It must be activated immediately,” Franco said.
Money, Franco said, is needed to help the agency climb out of debt and, more importantly, relaunch vital services to low-income residents in the county.
“SDC intends to pay every dollar it owes. First things first. Get anti-poverty services ready to go through SDC, which is ready to go today and that should not be delayed any further,” Franco said.
Some elected officials weigh in. Most stay silent.
State Sen. LaTonya Johnson said that she’d like to see SDC rebound from its troubles.
“SDC has been in the community for many years providing pivotal services for the community and this community can’t afford to lose those services,” she said.
Still, she said, given the significant mismanagement of funds at SDC, she understands that the Department of Children and Families will make a decision it feels is in the best interests of residents.
“Whatever decision they make, I’ll have to back it just like other elected officials will because we have to believe that they’re making the choice that’s best for taxpayers,” she said. “I’m hoping that the state will have a way to make sure that services will be provided, whether it’s SDC or not.”
Ald. Sharlen Moore also hopes to see SDC survive.
“They provide a critical need to our community, and so what I would hope is that they would find the necessary help or support that they need in order to get back on track,” Moore said. “It’s such a huge void.”
Like Johnson, she also acknowledges the challenges of providing funding to an organization with an uncertain future.
“It’s hard giving someone money without knowing how they are going to move forward,” she said.
Rep. Gwen Moore said it is important to center the people who have been majorly affected, like residents who lost services and former employees who are still owed pay.
“The serious concerns raised by the state must be addressed, and I hope the result of this process moves us closer to resuming these vital services to my constituents,” she said.
NNS reached out to more than 20 elected officials from the city, county and state government for comment on SDC’s future, including Common Council President Jose Perez and Milwaukee County Board Chairwoman Marcella Nicholson. Only three elected officials chose to speak.
What’s next?
Despite the current challenges, Franco said that he is confident SDC will bounce back and that the history of the organization is proof of its effectiveness in fighting poverty.
“SDC has a legacy of generations of people who’ve been helped by SDC, and they still live in the community,” he said. “Whatever its issues were in recent times, the long-standing legacy and the number of people who have been helped must not be forgotten.”
Want to understand the levers of power in Wisconsin? Our statehouse team writes a weekly preview of what’s on the agenda in state politics and why it matters. It’s called Forward. The analysis below is an example of what you can expect in your inbox every Monday if you subscribe here. (Our newsletters are free, like all of our journalism).
Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan was arrested on Friday for allegedly helping a man living in the United States without legal status evade federal immigration authorities. Dugan faces two federal felony counts — obstruction and concealing an individual.
Dugan’s case is similar to a 2019 case brought by federal prosecutors against Massachusetts Judge Shelley M. Richmond Joseph. In that case, Joseph was accused of helping an unauthorized immigrant avoid an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent after a court appearance.
In both cases, federal officials alleged the state judges allowed the defendants to exit their courtrooms through alternative routes to avoid federal immigration officials waiting outside the courtrooms in publicly accessible areas.
In a criminal complaint filed last week, federal officials alleged that Dugan confronted immigration enforcement officials outside of her courtroom as they waited for a defendant who was scheduled to appear before her finished his court business. Witnesses reported that Dugan “was visibly upset and had a confrontational, angry demeanor,” according to the complaint. Dugan asked to see the warrant the immigration officials were acting upon and then referred them to see the county’s chief judge.
After returning to the courtroom, Dugan then escorted the man and his attorney through a door that leads to a “nonpublic area” of the courthouse, the complaint states.
A similar series of events unfolded in the Massachusetts case. After learning that an ICE agent was waiting to arrest a defendant, Joseph eventually had the man exit the courtroom through a nonpublic exit, federal authorities alleged in a 2019 indictment. A separate court official then helped him exit the building through a back door.
The Massachusetts case was dismissed in 2022. In exchange, Joseph referred herself to the Massachusetts Commission on Judicial Conduct, per The New York Times.
One key difference between the two cases: Joseph was indicted. Dugan was served a criminal complaint. To secure an indictment, prosecutors have to present evidence to a panel of everyday Wisconsin residents and convince them there is probable cause a crime has been committed. For criminal complaints, officials only have to get the sign-off of a federal judge, but then later have to secure an indictment from a grand jury, two former federal prosecutors told Wisconsin Watch.
Now, the federal government has 21 days to seek an indictment, according to Laurie Levenson, a law professor at Loyola Marymount University and a former federal prosecutor.
“It is unusual that this happened with an arrest and complaint because there really is no indication that the Judge was a flight risk or danger to the community,” she told Wisconsin Watch in an email. “They easily could have gone to the grand jury first and summoned her in IF the grand jury wanted to indict.”
Stephen Kravit, a Milwaukee area attorney and former federal prosecutor, said criminal complaints are rare in the Eastern District of Wisconsin and are usually reserved for “an exigent situation where the defendant’s whereabouts aren’t specifically known or the presence in this area is temporary.”
“None of that applies to a sitting Circuit Court Judge,” he added in an email.
Instead, Kravit said, “this was done in a hurry to make a political point.” He added, “Normally, a person charged even with felonies aged 60+ with no record and no chance of fleeing would be summoned to show up at an appointed time for booking and arraignment. Not here. And that was the point.”
🚘 Budget road trip. The Joint Finance Committee will hold a pair of hearings on Monday and Tuesday this week, stepping away from the Capitol in Madison to hear from Wisconsin residents in Hayward and Wausau about what they want included in the state’s next two-year budget.
It will be the third and fourth time so far that the committee has heard from the public on the spending plan. But as the GOP-controlled committee continues to go through the motions of crafting the budget, Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, R-Rochester, indicated last week that Republican lawmakers could punt on passing a new budget altogether.
Vos was reacting to a Wisconsin Supreme Courtdecision that left intact a move from Gov. Tony Evers that provided for annual public school funding increases for the next 400 years. “It’s certainly a possibility if we can’t find a way for us to get to a common middle ground,” Vos said of spiking the funding plan last week on the “Jay Weber Show.” “But that’s not the goal.”
“It’s something we’re talking about, but it wouldn’t be the first go-to,” Vos added, noting that it has never happened before. The state has passed a budget every two years since 1931, according to the nonpartisan Legislative Reference Bureau.
But even if the Legislature were to pass on sending a new spending plan to Evers, things in the state wouldn’t shut down. In Wisconsin, the state continues operating at the existing spending levels until a new budget is approved.
📈 Student homelessness rising. Homelessness among K-12 Wisconsin students reached a new high in 2024, increasing 9% over the previous year despite total enrollment declining slightly.
That’s according to a new report from the Wisconsin Policy Forum, which found that a little more than 20,000 Wisconsin students were homeless in 2023-24. If that figure seems high, it’s because it is. Homelessness among students is counted using a definition that is more expansive than the one employed by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The federal McKinney-Vento Act defines homeless children and youth as those “who lack a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence.”
It’s the third straight year that student homelessness increased in Wisconsin, the report found, reaching a new high since the state Department of Public Instruction started keeping data in 2019.
“The number of students affected by homelessness has grown and is likely to continue to remain high in the near future as an insufficient supply of affordable housing remains a lingering problem throughout the state,” the report concludes. “Addressing the needs of this high-risk group of students could benefit not only them but also Wisconsin’s educational outcomes overall.”
Wisconsin Watch’s Hallie Claflin has been documenting the state’s rural homelessness crisis, including in her latest report about police departments transporting homeless people outside their jurisdiction. We’ll be watching the budget process closely to see if lawmakers address this issue or similarly treat it as out of sight, out of mind.
Reading Time: 7minutesClick here to read highlights from the story
Prosecutors nationwide must provide the defense with information that could call into question the credibility of police officers or anyone else who might testify — whether that’s a history of criminal activity, dishonesty or some other integrity violation.
In many cases, prosecutors track such information through what’s called a “Brady list” of officers. No clear Wisconsin or federal standards exist for when officers should be listed for disclosure.
The consequences for failing to disclose Brady material can be dire, even leading people to be incarcerated for crimes they didn’t commit.
Brady list policies elsewhere range widely, with some jurisdictions more meticulous than others. Such policies should consider the rights of police and citizens, experts say.
Arizona and Colorado have developed statewide disclosure systems.
When someone is charged with a crime, law enforcement testimony can play a crucial role in court, even determining whether the defendant lands in prison.
That’s why prosecutors nationwide must provide the defense with information that could call into question the credibility of officers or anyone else who might testify — whether that’s a history of criminal activity, dishonesty or some other integrity violation.
But how do prosecutors determine what to disclose about whom?
That’s where it gets complicated, and it’s the subject of an ongoing investigation by Wisconsin Watch, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and TMJ4 News called Duty to Disclose.
Many district attorneys maintain lists of officers accused of acting in ways that erode their credibility. These are often called Brady or Giglio lists, named for two U.S. Supreme Court rulings related to disclosure.
How do prosecutors across the rest of the state and country disclose such information and what best practices do experts recommend?
Here’s what to know.
What are the standards for Brady lists in Wisconsin?
No clear state or federal standards exist for when officers should be listed for disclosure.
It’s up to district attorney’s offices, which are responsible for prosecuting crimes, to maintain such records.
The district attorney should know when an officer is referred for potential criminal charges. But when officers face non-criminal internal violations, prosecutors rely on law enforcement to share that information for consideration. That’s the case in Milwaukee County, according to District Attorney Kent Lovern. If such sharing doesn’t happen, his office may be left unaware.
Milwaukee County District Attorney Kent Lovern makes decisions about which officers to put on — or take off — his Brady list. He is shown being interviewed by reporters for Wisconsin Watch, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and TMJ4 News in January 2025. (TMJ4 News)
The accuracy of a Brady list hinges on clear communication between law enforcement departments and prosecutors, said Rachel Moran, an associate law professor at University of St. Thomas School of Law in Minneapolis who has researched Brady systems nationwide.
“That is where a lot of the sloppiness happens is that prosecutors don’t set up a good system with the police for even learning about the information,” Moran said.
In Duty to Disclose, reporters asked 23 law enforcement agencies in Milwaukee County for policies governing how to handle Brady material.
Only seven provided a written policy. The Milwaukee Police Department and eight other agencies said they lacked a written policy, while the remaining seven did not respond.
What do Brady lists look like in Wisconsin?
A 2024 Wisconsin Watch investigation found some of Wisconsin’s counties keeping spotty Brady records. Records requests to 72 counties turned up more than 360 names of officers on Brady lists. The tally was incomplete since 17 counties either denied a records request or said they didn’t keep track.
Another 23 district attorneys said they had no names on file, although some said they would reach out to local agencies to update their list.
Milwaukee County disclosed incomplete information at the time. But after TMJ4 News made its own request and threatened to sue, the county released a full list of 192 officers listed for a wide range of conduct — from a recruit who cheated on a test to officers sentenced to federal prison for civil rights violations. Some officers were listed multiple times.
Of more than 200 entries on the Milwaukee County list released in September, nearly half related to an integrity or misconduct issue, such as officers lying on or off duty. About 14% related to domestic or intimate partner violence, and nearly 10% related to sex crimes, including sexual assault or possessing child pornography. Another 14% involved alcohol-related offenses.
What can go wrong if Brady disclosure doesn’t happen?
The consequences for failing to disclose Brady material can be dire, even leading people to be incarcerated for crimes they didn’t commit.
In one extreme case in 1990, an Arizona woman was convicted of kidnapping and murdering her 4-year-old son based largely on the testimony of a Phoenix police detective who had a history of lying under oath — details prosecutors did not disclose. As a result, Debra Milke sat on death row for 22 years before a judge vacated her conviction in 2014.
What are other benefits of consistent Brady list disclosure?
The lack of consistent disclosure has prompted some defense attorneys to maintain their own internal Brady systems based on information they learn, said Alissa Heydari, director of the Vanderbilt Project on Prosecution Policy and a former prosecutor.
That extra scrutiny makes it even more important for prosecutors to be aware of witness credibility issues.
“From a strategic point, you want to know the weaknesses in your own case and in your own witnesses,” Heydari said.
Consistent, transparent tracking of Brady information could also improve trust in police, Moran said.
“I don’t think this is an attack on police,” she said. “If anything, I think it could help the credibility of law enforcement to be more transparent about the officers with histories of misconduct.”
Some police unions have sought to influence how Brady lists are created or maintained — including in Los Angeles, Brooklyn and Philadelphia, according to Moran’s research.
Little federal enforcement and a lack of political incentive to challenge police power often prevent state or local tightening of Brady standards.
“Police misconduct disproportionately impacts communities that are often not heard and not represented in media investigations and not represented as well in politics and in places of power,” Moran said.
Following publication of the first Duty to Disclose installments, the Wisconsin Fraternal Order of Police criticized Milwaukee County’s Brady list release, saying officers could face “significant career and reputational damage.”
“We appeal to the legislature to establish a standardized, transparent process that ensures the protection of officers’ due process rights, while maintaining the public’s trust in the integrity of our law enforcement agencies,” the police group said in a March 4 statement.
What are best practices for maintaining Brady lists?
Brady list policies elsewhere range widely, with some jurisdictions more meticulous than others. Such policies should consider the rights of police and citizens, Heydari said.
Prosecutors are increasingly recognizing the importance of crafting such policies, but “my guess is that it’s a pretty small minority of offices that are doing it,” Heydari added.
John Jay University’s Institute for Innovation in Prosecution in 2021 highlighted 11 jurisdictions nationwide —from San Francisco to Philadelphia — that clearly spell out their policies.
The institute offers a variety of recommendations, including collecting as much information as possible from police departments about misconduct, providing staff with training, designating a group of people responsible for deciding when to list officers and crafting clear criteria for additions.
The lack of consistent disclosure by prosecutors has prompted some defense attorneys to maintain their own internal Brady systems based on information they learn about law enforcement officers’ histories. (Andrew Mulhearn for Wisconsin Watch)
“You don’t want to be frivolously adding police officers who, for instance, have unsubstantiated allegations against them,” Heydari said.
Moran cautions against making that criteria too narrow.
The Milwaukee County District Attorney’s Office uses strict criteria, listing officers only when they have a pending criminal charge, a past conviction or an internal investigation “that brings into question the officer’s integrity.”
That has left off, for instance, some officers who a judge found to lack credibility.
Last year, the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office in Minneapolis expanded the type of conduct
that may qualify as Brady material, announced specialized training for attorneys, created a new tracking system for judicial orders related to witness credibility and hired staff to exclusively focus on Brady compliance.
Are there any statewide Brady disclosure systems?
Arizona and Colorado have developed statewide disclosure systems, although government watchdogs have called them imperfect.
Colorado became the first state to mandate standards for tracking dishonesty in law enforcement in 2019. But a Denver Post investigation later found inconsistencies in the tracking system.
A bipartisan bill in 2021 expanded disclosure requirements, making Brady list policies and mechanisms transparent to the public. The legislation requires minimum disclosure standards for counties, with options to disclose more than is required.
Colorado maintains a searchable Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) database that includes decertifications and disciplinary files including untruthfulness. The 2021 law required dishonesty flags be made public. However, the POST website emphasizes that the database itself is not a Brady list.
Arizona lacks state mandates for tracking and disclosing Brady lists. The Arizona Prosecuting Attorneys’ Advisory Council does, however, publish a statewide database of listed officers — an effort that followed a 2020 investigation by ABC15 that found some prosecutors failed to keep accurate Brady lists. The council also publishes best practices for such disclosure.
Milwaukee County Supervisor Justin Bielinski said a statewide Brady standard and database could help the county manage liability in hiring. As Milwaukee County police departments aggressively recruit officers from other jurisdictions, those with a history of questionable policing may slip under the radar, he said. The problem of “wandering officers” is well documented.
“A state law change that would centralize this kind of record keeping or at least standardize the process for how the locals go about doing it could be helpful,” Bielinski said, adding that the county board lacks power to craft such standards for the sheriff’s department.
But Bielinski, who also serves as the communications director for state Sen. Chris Larson, D-Milwaukee, doubts legislation to create Brady list standards would advance in a Legislature controlled by Republicans who more often back police groups and “tough on crime” platforms.
Larson has a different view, saying that legislation for consistency standards across law enforcement agencies and a statewide database housed at the Wisconsin Department of Justice could garner bipartisan support.
“Even Republicans would want to have consistency with their law enforcement so that they’re held to the highest standards,” Larson said.
Wisconsin state Sen. Chris Larson, D-Milwaukee, is photographed during a state Senate session on June 7, 2023, in the Wisconsin State Capitol building in Madison, Wis. (Drake White-Bergey / Wisconsin Watch)
Asked if he supports statewide Brady standards, Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul said district attorneys should retain their discretion, which depends on a range of factors and the circumstances of the cases.
“It’s not as simple as whether somebody is on a list or not,” the Democrat told the Journal Sentinel. “There’s more analysis that needs to go into it.”
Still, Kaul said any Brady lists should be accessible and include “as much consistency as possible.”
Ashley Luthern of the Journal Sentinel and Ben Jordan of TMJ4 News contributed reporting.
This story is part of Duty to Disclose, an investigation by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, TMJ4 News and Wisconsin Watch. The Fund for Investigative Journalism provided financial support for this project.
Reading Time: 11minutesClick here to read highlights from the story
The Milwaukee County District Attorney’s Office has strict criteria to place officers on its Brady list, meant to help prosecutors fulfill their legal duty to share evidence that could help prove someone’s innocence.
The list omits officers whose testimony has been found not credible by judges and who have cost taxpayers millions in misconduct lawsuits. That includes two Milwaukee police detectives who were found to have falsified reports that led to an innocent man’s homicide conviction.
Experts call the criteria improperly narrow, depriving defendants of crucial information for a fair trial.
After two days of testimony about a traffic stop that ended in a drug arrest, a Milwaukee County judge had heard enough.
“You can stop,” Judge Paul R. Van Grunsven said last fall, interrupting the defense attorney who was still cross-examining a West Allis police officer.
The judge recounted inconsistencies in the officer’s testimony and body camera footage shown during an evidence suppression hearing.
“This witness has lost any credibility with this court,” Van Grunsven said. “I find none of his testimony to therefore be truthful.”
The Milwaukee County District Attorney’s Office has strict criteria to place officers on the list and only does so if officers have a pending criminal charge, a past conviction or an internal investigation “that brings into question the officer’s integrity.”
Legal experts who reviewed the policy suggest it is improperly narrow, depriving defendants of crucial information for a fair trial.
The list omits officers whose testimony has been found not credible by judges and who have cost taxpayers millions in misconduct lawsuits, an investigation by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, TMJ4 News and Wisconsin Watch found.
Experts said any one of those officers could be included on a “Brady/Giglio” list, so named for two landmark U.S. Supreme Court rulings. Such lists are maintained to help prosecutors fulfill their legal obligations to share information favorable to the defense.
In practice, the decision about who gets on — and taken off — the list often comes down to one person: Milwaukee County District Attorney Kent Lovern.
Lovern has maintained his office is fulfilling its legal obligations while striking “the appropriate balance” with adding officers to the list.
Lovern took office in January. Prior to that, he served for 16 years as the top deputy to his predecessor, John Chisholm, and was responsible for maintaining what is formally known as the “officer status list.”
“I respect that other jurisdictions may apply different parameters to their respective Brady lists,” Lovern said. “At the same time, we know many jurisdictions do not even maintain a list.”
It’s dishonesty, he said in an interview, that gets officers on the list. He has drawn a distinction between overt deception and credibility rulings, when a judge determines an officer’s testimony does not match the evidence.
Those rulings most often occur in suppression hearings with judges finding officers did not meet their legal burden for obtaining evidence, he said.
Milwaukee County District Attorney Kent Lovern, far right, often makes the decision about who gets on — and taken off — the Brady list. With him from left are Milwaukee County Sheriff Denita R. Ball, Milwaukee Police Chief Jeffrey Norman and Chief Judge Carl Ashley. (TMJ4 News)
Veteran defense attorneys say judges can and do throw out evidence when an officer cannot articulate reasonable suspicion or probable cause, but that it is different — and rare — for a judge to plainly call an officer’s testimony not credible.
“It’s the reason the judge found them not credible: It’s testimony that didn’t line up with physical evidence or what the evidence was in the case,” said Jeremy Perri, deputy trial division director for the State Public Defender’s Office.
An officer’s placement on the Brady list does not guarantee his or her past will come up in court. It’s up to the prosecutor to disclose it, the defense attorney to raise it and a judge to find it relevant to a specific case.
“Brady is not designed to punish the officers,” said Laurie Levenson, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles and a former federal prosecutor.
“Brady is designed to ensure people get fair trials,” she said.
A wrongful homicide conviction
William Avery’s homicide conviction hinged on the word of other people.
Jailhouse informants and two Milwaukee police detectives said he had admitted to killing 39-year-old Maryetta Griffin.
Avery always maintained his innocence. In 2010, he was exonerated after DNA evidence linked Griffin’s homicide to serial killer Walter Ellis. Avery had served six years of a 40-year sentence and was one of three people charged in homicides later attributed to Ellis.
Avery filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against the city and seven Milwaukee police detectives. This time, a jury believed Avery’s word and awarded him $1 million in damages.
Jurors considered reams of evidence, including a handwritten report from then-detective Gilbert Hernandez. Hernandez and Daniel Phillips, another detective, interviewed Avery soon after Griffin’s homicide in 1998.
Hernandez wrote that Avery admitted selling drugs to Griffin and later fighting with her after he woke up to her going through his pockets.
Hernandez asked Avery how he had killed Griffin.
“Subject states, ‘I’m responsible, I just don’t remember,’” according to the report, which Avery had refused to sign.
The next day, Hernandez filed another report that said during further questioning, Avery had denied killing Griffin.
Avery was not charged with homicide then but was convicted of a drug offense. Years later, after the jailhouse informants came forward, Avery was charged with Griffin’s homicide. At the criminal trial, Hernandez and Phillips testified that Avery implicated himself, and Hernandez’s report was admitted into evidence.
The federal civil jury not only found in Avery’s favor but concluded Hernandez and Phillips had falsified reports saying Avery admitted to the homicide. The jury found the other detectives named in the lawsuit had not engaged in improper conduct.
At the time of the federal verdict, Phillips was retired, but Hernandez was still working as an investigator at the Wisconsin Department of Justice.
Lovern, the district attorney, said the state agency never referred the well-publicized jury finding to his office for potential inclusion on the Brady list.
“Our office has determined not to add him to our database,” Lovern said in an email, responding to follow-up questions from the Journal Sentinel.
“They sent an innocent man to prison based on a fabricated confession,” Elson said. “If they don’t belong on a Brady list, who does?”
The state Department of Justice said Hernandez resigned as a sworn special agent for the Division of Criminal Investigation in February 2016, after the civil jury finding. He continued working in a series of non-sworn office roles at the department until his retirement in December, an agency spokesman said.
The state would share any Brady/Giglio information about Hernandez with district attorneys or other law enforcement agencies “upon request,” Riley Vetterkind, the spokesman, said in an email.
Hernandez declined to comment recently when reached by a Journal Sentinel reporter. In the federal civil trial, he denied any wrongdoing, as did Phillips.
Hernandez remains on a witness list for prosecutors, identified as a “DCI investigator,” in at least one pending homicide case: Maxwell Anderson, who is charged with killing and dismembering Sade Robinson.
A traffic stop ends in a search without cause
Lewis Moore went to prison, accused of a crime never proven in court.
On March 2, 2019, Moore got pulled over while driving. A Milwaukee officer, Chad Boyack, told Moore he had been “flying” and asked him to step out of the car.
Moore, then 22, did so and raised his arms.
He was sure he had not been speeding. His license was valid. The car was not stolen or wanted. It was his girlfriend’s car, he told the other officer, Anthony Milone, as he sat in the back of the police squad.
She has her concealed-carry permit, he said, and her gun might be in the car.
Lewis Moore spent two years in prison accused of a crime never proven in court. (TMJ4 News)
Boyack did find a gun in the center console. Moore maintained he did not know it was there. He was on probation for a low-level felony and legally barred from having a gun.
Boyack and Milone arrested him. A prosecutor charged him with being a felon in possession of a firearm. As a result, Moore was revoked from probation and put behind bars — his first experience in prison.
“I don’t deserve this,” Moore said he remembered thinking at the time. “I didn’t do nothing wrong.”
His case got stuck in the court system during the COVID-19 pandemic. He even considered pleading guilty just to get it over with.
But his public defender, Caitlin Hazard Firer, had reviewed the reports and officers’ body camera footage. She believed the officers had conducted an illegal search. So she filed a motion to try to get the evidence from the search thrown out.
Moore finally had his day in court in 2021. Inconsistencies piled up from the officers.
Boyack and Milone gave different estimates of his speed that day, the highest being 60 mph. Video footage showed the officers turning on their squad’s lights and driving 32 mph to pull him over.
The officers said Moore took a while to stop, which factored into their decision to get him out of the car. Video showed Moore stopped within 30 seconds, spending much of that time navigating the busy intersection of North 27th Street and West Capitol Drive.
The officers differed on whether they smelled burnt marijuana from the car. Boyack testified that he did, though he did not mention the smell when he first spoke with Moore during the stop. Milone testified he did not smell it.
Boyack also testified he did not see marijuana until he searched the car, turning up the equivalent of a few grains of rice. Milone testified he did not see or smell it when he approached the car.
Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Glenn Yamahiro heard the testimony, reviewed the video footage and determined the evidence had been unlawfully seized. He also noted there was no independent evidence of speeding, like a radar gun.
“So bottom line here is I don’t find these officers credible in this case,” Yamahiro said, according to a transcript.
“I do not find the reasoning here for why he got put in the squad car legitimate,” the judge said later in the hearing, adding: “I do not find the actions of the officers here lawful.”
Moore’s attorney had been practicing law for decades. It was the first adverse credibility ruling against an officer in any of her cases.
“This is incredibly rare,” Firer said. “In my experience, judges will find another reason to suppress the evidence.”
“A judge has found them not credible, and that is Brady material,” she said.
Lovern, the district attorney, disagreed. He said the prosecutor on the case did not tell him about the judge’s finding and did not need to do so.
Lovern said the judge’s decision related to a specific set of circumstances at a suppression hearing and did not find the officers had been dishonest.
Chief Judge Carl Ashley echoed his comments, saying: “The judge didn’t say they were lying.”
Yamahiro declined to comment to the Journal Sentinel.
Police Chief Jeffrey Norman, left, alongside Mayor Cavalier Johnson, speaks on June 10, 2022, at the Milwaukee Police Administration Building in Milwaukee. (Jovanny Hernandez / Milwaukee Journal Sentinel)
Milwaukee Police Chief Jeffrey Norman said he was unaware of the judicial ruling. The department did not investigate the circumstances of Moore’s arrest because no one made a complaint, he said.
Norman praised the two officers, saying they had earned many meritorious awardsfor their service. In a follow-up email, the department said the chief agreed with the district attorney and chief judge that the judge’s credibility finding was only for testimony at a suppression hearing, “which is different than the integrity or credibility of an individual.”
Boyack and Milone did not respond to interview requests from TMJ4 News. The Milwaukee Police Department declined to make them available for an interview.
Years later, Moore still finds it difficult to capture how that traffic stop upended his life.
“You guys took time away from me and my family and my business,” he said in an interview with TMJ4 News.
These judicial rulings do not mean an officer purposefully lied or committed perjury.
Last year, the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office in Minneapolis expanded the type of conduct that may qualify as Brady material and created a new tracking system for judicial orders related to witness credibility.
In Milwaukee County, there is no comprehensive tracking of such decisions. Asked if such a system should exist, the county’s chief judge said, “there’s always a transcript of the proceedings.”
Attorneys cannot ask for a transcript if they do not know a ruling was made in the first place. Legal experts say such rulings should be disclosed and underscored that Brady protections help prevent wrongful convictions.
Official misconduct has played a significant role in about 54% of wrongful convictions, according to a 2020 study from the National Registry of Exonerations.
“It is a staggering number that runs the gamut of witness tampering, misconduct in interrogations, fabricating evidence, concealing exculpatory evidence and perjury at trial,” said Rachel Burg, director of the Wisconsin Innocence Project.
Most cases involving misdemeanors and lower felony offenses are rarely reviewed after conviction.
Rachel Moran, a professor at the University of St. Thomas School of Law in Minneapolis, has extensively studied Brady lists.
She reviewed Milwaukee County’s policy and said it appears to have an “improperly narrow reading of what types of misconduct could count as Brady evidence.”
The district attorney’s Brady list included 191 officers, as of late February. Thousands of officers have worked in the county since the list was started 25 years ago.
“The fact that the list dates back so many years and has relatively few officers suggests that it is probably missing a lot of Brady material,” Moran said.
Levenson, the Loyola Law School professor, said when a system fails to track officers with credibility problems, patterns get missed.
“The real concern is it’s not an isolated mistake, it becomes part of the culture,” she said.
A drug charge dismissed after officer found not credible by judge
The 22-year-old man stopped by Lazaris, the West Allis police officer later scolded by a judge, faced a felony drug charge.
The man’s attorney, Justin Padway, looked at the body camera footage.
In the video, Padway saw his client being polite and cooperative with the officer who had pulled him over. Lazaris peppered the driver with questions, including if he had guns or marijuana in the car. The man said no and kept his hands visible during the encounter. Lazaris got him out of the car and frisked him anyway.
Padway believed the officer had unlawfully searched his client and extended the traffic stop. He filed a motion to suppress the seized evidence, which included cocaine.
At the suppression hearing, Lazaris contradicted himself and the body camera footage, according to a transcript.
In court, Lazaris said he pulled the man over for window tint. He said he believed he had thwarted a drug transaction and that the driver was involved in drug trafficking. In response to Padway’s questions, he admitted he saw no evidence of drug trafficking or a drug transaction.
Padway asked him to confirm his earlier testimony in the hearing, that he saw cocaine in the car. The officer said yes.
Padway played body camera footage in court. Lazaris could be heard telling another officer there may or may not be “shake” in the car. “Shake” typically refers to leftover, loose marijuana.
Lazaris, on the witness stand, said the term could be used for either marijuana or cocaine. Soon after, the judge, Van Grunsven, interrupted the questioning and said he was ready to rule.
“This guy testifies under oath he saw ‘shake’ in the vehicle,” the judge said. “That’s what he tells the K9 officer. That’s what’s truthful. That’s what’s honest. That’s what’s credible. The fact that he tries now to say that it was cocaine shake is incredible.”
The judge cited the other inconsistencies and ruled the search was unlawful, meaning the seized evidence could not be used. Prosecutors dismissed the charge against Padway’s client, who had no prior criminal convictions and has not been charged with any other offense.
The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel requested an interview with Lazaris or a West Allis Police Department official. In an email response, West Allis Deputy Chief Chris Marks defended the officer and said the department does not believe the judge’s finding should be considered Brady material.
“An officer losing a motion hearing can occur during the course of an officer’s career but is not indicative of deceit,” Marks said in an email. “The officer is a highly valued member of our department. We support the officer’s actions.”
Milwaukee County District Attorney Kent Lovern in his office on Jan. 15, 2025. Lovern maintains his office is fulfilling its Brady list obligations. (Mike De Sisti / Milwaukee Journal Sentinel)
Lovern, the district attorney, said the case illustrates why his office generally will not add officers to the Brady list for credibility determinations made in court hearings.
The judge’s finding stemmed from what he thought the term “shake” meant, Lovern said.
“In fact, the term ‘shake’ has long been used to refer to both particles of marijuana and cocaine, particularly by law enforcement investigators,” Lovern said in an email.
Lovern did not address other inconsistencies cited by the judge. The Journal Sentinel left several messages for the judge but did not hear back.
To Padway, placing such an officer on the Brady list is “essential for maintaining the integrity of the justice system.”
“It ensures that both defense attorneys and prosecutors have access to crucial information about an officer’s credibility, protecting the defendant’s right to a fair trial and upholding public trust in law enforcement,” he said.
This story is part of Duty to Disclose, an investigation by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, TMJ4 and Wisconsin Watch. The Fund for Investigative Journalism provided financial support for this project.
Login
