Milwaukee's King Park surrounded by yellow tape after Sam Sharpe, a resident of a temporary encampment there, was shot by Ohio police officers during the 2024 Republican National Convention. (Henry Redman | Wisconsin Examiner)

The Wisconsin Assembly Committee on Criminal Justice and Public Safety on Tuesday held a public hearing on a pair of bills that would require homeless people on the state’s sex offender registry to wear ankle monitors and increase the penalty for selling drugs close to homeless shelters. 

Under the first bill, authored by Rep. Dave Maxey (R-New Berlin), people required to sign up for the sex offender registry and unable to provide a permanent address must be placed under GPS monitoring. An estimated 16% of Wisconsin’s homeless population is on the sex offender registry, according to Maxey, who said he wanted to make sure this population was not a blind spot for Department of Corrections monitoring of people on the list. 

“This bill is a clear and common-sense public safety measure that applies one uniform standard so every registrant is monitored at the same level, regardless of housing status,” Maxey said. “This is a straightforward way to protect every member of our society.”

A number of Democrats on the committee had concerns about putting the proposal into practice. 

Rep. Jodi Emerson (D-Eau Claire) wondered if the cost of the monitoring would end up being paid for by the state. 

“Most times, the GPS monitoring is paid for by the person who needs to wear it eventually,” Emerson said. “And if they don’t have the resources to afford a home, I don’t know if they’re going to have the resources to pay the state back for this. And is this something that we’re just going to end up incurring extra costs on? I’m trying to balance the cost versus safety factor.”

Rep. Sequanna Taylor (D-Milwaukee) noted that the ankle monitors need to be regularly charged, which might pose a challenge for people without a home. 

“When we talk about the GPS, I know even the people that are not in this situation, who may be on it, there are sometimes tweaks or glitches with them, and also the everyday charging, if we’re talking about someone who’s homeless, is not staying anywhere, I guess I’m just trying to see, how can we encompass or ensure that it will be charged, because once it’s not able to be charged and it’s off, are they meant to go report somewhere or is that a process we haven’t thought about yet?”

Another bill heard by the committee Tuesday, authored by Rep. Bob Donovan (R-Greenfield), would add homeless shelters to the list of places including schools, government buildings and public parks that are considered drug-free zones. Convictions for selling drugs within these zones carry harsher penalties. 

“Drug-related crimes pose a severe threat to community safety, particularly in areas where at-risk populations are located, current law wisely imposes enhanced penalties for distributing illegal drugs within 1,000 feet of sensitive locations like schools and parks, adding up to five years to the maximum sentence,” Donovan said. “These Drug Free Zones deter illegal activity and safeguard those who are most vulnerable. However, homeless shelters are not included in these protections. Many, many homeless individuals face profound challenges, including addiction and mental health issues. Extending these zones is about punishing malicious drug dealers who prey upon the homeless while providing basic security for them as they attempt to reenter society.”

But advocates for addiction treatment and criminal justice reform questioned the wisdom of the proposal. 

Dr. Charles Schauberger, an Onalaska resident and president of the Wisconsin Society of Addiction Medicine, said making homeless shelters a drug-free zone could increase police presence around a shelter, which might push homeless drug users away from the area and into more dangerous situations. 

“This legislation is not only ineffective in helping homeless people, but potentially worsens the situation,” Schauberger said. “Increasing criminal penalties for substance-related offenses near shelters may lead to increased law enforcement presence around these facilities for people who use substances they may carry, or may even carry a small amount for personal use, which creates a great deal of fear, fear of harassment, fear of incarceration, fear of losing the only safe place they have yet to go.”

He added that when people are afraid to use shelters, “they don’t disappear. They move further into unsafe spaces. They sleep outside. They use substances alone. They disengage from services. They increase risk of overdose. Medical emergencies, deaths make it much harder for clinicians like me to reach them.”

Amanda Merkwae, advocacy director of the ACLU of Wisconsin, said that while the proposal has an “admirable goal” it comes with unintended consequences. She said that in the state’s larger, denser cities, so much of the land is covered by various drug-free zones that lots of drug-related activity is punished there more harshly than in rural parts of the state. 

“In densely populated urban areas, that radius around each of these integrated locations overlaps to the point where sometimes an entire city can become functionally a drug-free zone,” she said, noting that the city of Milwaukee contains 156 public schools, 101 private schools, 12 multi-unit public housing facilities, four public swimming pools, dozens of youth and community centers, hundreds of child care facilities, six correctional facilities and more than 130 public parks. 

“So studies have shown that these zones don’t necessarily track where drug activity is most prevalent, but rather where certain populations are concentrated,” she said. “So we create this kind of two-tiered justice system based on geography rather than the nature of the crime. So residents in cities can face greater exposure to enhanced maximum penalties than those in rural or suburban areas for the exact same conduct.”