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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

School resource officers in MPS 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other bills passed include

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

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

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Rep. Robin Vos and Sen. Julian Bradley testified on a bill to verify the immigration status of people being held for a felony charge. Screenshot via WisEye.

Republican lawmakers argued Wednesday that the state needs to require local law enforcement to report people with felony charges to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) if they can’t verify citizenship as a way to support public safety.

Proposed legislation would require local sheriffs to verify the citizenship status of people in custody for a felony offense and notify Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) if citizenship cannot be verified. It would also require sheriffs to comply with detainers and administrative warrants received from the federal Department of Homeland Security for people held in the county jail for a criminal offense. It comes as President Donald Trump and his administration have started to ramp up deportation of migrants in the U.S. without legal authorization and taken other steps to restrict U.S. immigration. 

Sen. Julian Bradley (R-New Berlin) and Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester) emphasized during Assembly Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee hearing that their bill, AB 24, would only apply in cases of felony offenses.

“This seems to get dragged into a lot of other immigration policy, but I want to repeat individuals who are here illegally who commit felonies,” Bradley said. 

“Let’s be clear again. This proposal will make it easier to remove dangerous criminals from our communities,” Bradley said. “It’s shocking to think that a handful in law enforcement and our government would rather protect felons than work with our federal partners to stop the flow of crime and drugs into our neighborhoods.”  He added that he hoped to see bipartisan support for the bill. 

The lawmakers said  counties that don’t comply with ICE are putting other counties at risk.

Vos brought up a 2024 arrest by Prairie du Chien police of a Venezuelan immigrant who they said was affiliated with a gang and was charged with assaulting a mother and daughter. Republicans have repeatedly used the case to make political points about immigration.

“Prior to his arrest in Wisconsin, he was arrested in Minneapolis on suspicion of vehicle theft, he was booked into the Hennepin County Jail and soon released. Hennepin County, unfortunately, is listed as a non-cooperative facility,” Vos said. “Prompt ICE notification could have prevented this terrible crime from occurring right here in Wisconsin.”

A 2024 ICE report lists Dane and Milwaukee counties as “noncooperative institutions” in Wisconsin. Seven counties in the state currently have formal agreements with ICE to hold in jail immigrants without legal status. There were eight at one point, but Lafayette County ended its participation in ICE’s 287(g) program.

Under the bill, the county of a sheriff who does not comply would lose 15% of its shared revenue payments from the state in the next year. Compliance would need to be certified each year with the Wisconsin Department of Revenue.

Rep. Tip McGuire (D-Kenosha) questioned why an additional mandate on local law enforcement was necessary and pointed out the potential financial impact the bill could have on local officials. The financial impact to counties was pointed out as a concern in written testimony provided by Badger State Sheriffs’ Association. 

“Law enforcement already has the opportunity to allocate their resources as they need,” McGuire said. “That’s why we elect sheriffs. We want to put them in a position so they can make those determinations for their local community, and instead we’re mandating that they comply with the federal government in this case, and we don’t really know what the local circumstances are.”

County governments are “already struggling with challenges and staffing and their financial circumstances, and then we threaten to harm them financially if they don’t [comply],” he added. “What are we gaining?”

Public safety, Bradley answered,  adding that as long as sheriffs don’t “do what Milwaukee and Dane County are doing” then they “don’t have to worry about the claw back.” 

Vos justified the penalty with a reference to the long delay by Milwaukee Public Schools in placing 25 police officers in schools required by the 2023 state shared revenue law. He said not including a penalty in that legislation was a “mistake.” 

“If you want to enforce it, then there has to be a penalty,” Vos said. 

The bill lists fifteen documents that could be used to verify the status of a person arrested, including a U.S. passport, a birth record issued by a state in the US that bears an official seal or other mark of authentication, a certificate of naturalization and U.S. citizenship or a permanent resident card.

Rep. Jodi Emerson (D-Eau Claire) asked how quickly someone would have to produce the necessary records. 

“It’s people who are accused of a crime and not convicted,” Emerson said. “Because not everybody carries every single piece of paperwork and certainly not a notarized copy of a birth certificate around with them.”

Bradley said the bill would leave it up to the discretion of law enforcement but added he would be open to debating changes.

Emerson also asked if any consideration had been given to cases where a felony charge is potentially downgraded to a lesser charge. 

The authors said that the bill doesn’t consider that. 

“The people have already committed a crime by coming into the country illegally,” Vos said — although being in the U.S. without authorization is not a criminal offense in all cases.

 “The second crime that they would be committing would be potentially a violent felony,” Vos said. “All we’re saying is you have to notify ICE and then at that point ICE will give them all the opportunity to prove they are here legally. There is no problem with that, but that’s not really the responsibility of the citizens of Wisconsin.”

Under federal law, entering the U.S. without the approval of an immigration officer is a misdemeanor offense that carries fines and no more than six months in prison. However, in a significant number of cases, such as when someone enters the country legally and overstays a visa, it is just a civil violation.

Racine County District Attorney Patricia Hanson told lawmakers the bill is necessary to address political and policy barriers between Wisconsin’s 72 counties and to enable federal, state and local enforcement agencies to enhance safety. 

“This change in no way affects hard-working, undocumented people who may come to our jail for driving without a license. It will not even affect undocumented people who commit petty theft, who lie to the police about their identity, abuse their spouse with minor injuries, or drive drunk or impaired up to the third offense. None of those are felonies in Wisconsin,” Hanson said. “One could even argue under some of these circumstances this bill is not far enough, but it is a good start.”

Witnesses testifying against the bill said it could create fear in communities and discourage people from reporting crimes. 

Alondra Garcia, who said she is a visa holder, former DACA recipient and current Milwaukee Public Schools educator, said recent anti-immigrant rhetoric since Trump took office has been “disheartening” and “dehumanizing.”

The bill, she said, “would allow racial profiling to be acceptable in our community.”

“Immigrants, including those with legal status, will fear interaction with law enforcement, making them less likely to report crimes or seek help when needed. It will separate families and destabilize communities,” Garcia said. “Families will live in fear that a routine traffic stop or minor interaction with law enforcement could lead to detention and deportation.” 

Two groups — the Wisconsin Sheriffs and Deputy Sheriffs Association and Badger State Sheriffs’ Association — are registered in favor of the bill, according to the state’s lobbying website. Several groups are registered against the bill, including the American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin Inc, Kids Forward, Wisconsin Coalition Against Sexual Assault, Wisconsin Council of Churches, Wisconsin Counties Association and the Wisconsin Education Association Council.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

The Senate Committee on Judiciary and Public Safety. Seated at the table are Detective Joseph Mensah (left) and Wisconsin Fraternal Order of Police President Ryan Windorff (right) (Photo by Isiah Holmes/Wisconsin Examiner)

A Republican bill aiming to shield police officers from investigations after fatal shootings spurred committee debate and a deadlock vote Tuesday morning. The Senate’s Committee on Judiciary and Public Safety held an executive session to vote on the bill, which would prevent the use of John Doe hearings to review cases where officers are involved in fatal shootings of civilians. The hearing ended in a deadlocked 4-4  vote on advancing the bill. 

The bill was reported out of committee “without recommendation.” This means that the committee “has not recommended either approval or rejection of the bill,” Eric Barbour, the Senate committee clerk explained. It will next go to the Committee on Senate Organization, where it can then be scheduled for a vote by the full Senate.

Republican Sens. Rob Hutton (R-Brookfield), the bill’s author, committee chairman Van Wanggaard (R-Racine), Sen. Jesse James (R-Altoona), and Sen. Andre Jacque (R-De Pere) voted in favor of the bill. Democratic Sens. Kelda Roys (D-Madison), Dora Drake (D-Milwaukee) and LaTonya Johnson (D-Milwaukee) were joined by Republican Sen. Eric Wimberger (R-Oconto) in voting against the bill. 

Wimberger also voted against the bill last year, when it was first introduced by Hutton and Rep. Clint Moses (R-Menomonee). The bill’s original version was criticized for potentially preventing crime victims from having cases reviewed after a prosecutor declined to issue charges. Its latest version makes a specific carve-out for police officers involved in fatal shootings. Were it to pass, judges would be unable to hold hearings under Wisconsin’s John Doe law in cases where prosecutors have declined to issue charges. Instead, new or unused evidence would be required before a John Doe hearing could be considered. 

During a committee hearing earlier this month, Hutton said that the John Doe bill is archaic, and is increasingly being used to harass police officers. He and the law enforcement officers who testified  pointed to two instances of the law being used in recent years. One John Doe hearing held in 2021 reviewed the 2016 shooting of Jay Anderson Jr. by then-Wauwatosa officer Joseph Mensah. The other hearing was held in 2023, and reviewed the shooting of Tony Robinson by Madison Police officer Matthew Kenney. Both hearings were unsuccessful, with a judge dropping Robinson’s case and special prosecutors declining to pursue charges after Anderson’s hearing. 

Mensah spoke to the Senate committee when Hutton re-introduced the bill this year. During public testimony, Mensah described going through multiple investigations into his shooting of Anderson. Over a five-year career as a Wauwatosa officer, Mensah was involved in three fatal shootings. No charges were issued by the district attorney’s office in any of these cases. Anderson’s was the only one of Mensah’s shootings to get a John Doe hearing. 

Hutton has said that although he’s talked extensively with law enforcement about the bill, he has not engaged with any of the families of people killed by police. 

During Tuesday’s executive session, Sen. Roys expressed concern that the bill would create a new class protection for police officers. Roys highlighted recent findings regarding the Milwaukee Area Investigative Team (MAIT), which investigates police shootings and deaths in the Milwaukee area. Roys noted that the team’s policies afford officers numerous protections and privileges including the ability to refuse to give a recorded statement and the ability to make additional statements after viewing video evidence. 

James, who has had a career in law enforcement, responded that officers get to view video evidence because the incidents themselves happen so quickly, that they may forget certain details. “I don’t think there’s a real understanding of the complete process,” said James, who described Mensah as a victim because the shootings he was involved in were reviewed multiple times. 

Sen. Drake said that while officers deserve support, changing the John Doe law would take away an avenue of recourse from victims of police shootings and their families. 

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

The Senate Committee on Judiciary and Public Safety. Seated at the table are Detective Joseph Mensah (left) and Wisconsin Fraternal Order of Police President Ryan Windorff (right) (Photo by Isiah Holmes/Wisconsin Examiner)

“Baseless,” “false allegations,” and “meant to harass” were phrases used by Republican senators and police groups to describe what they called the “abuse” of Wisconsin’s John Doe law to exact vengeance on police officers who were involved in fatal incidents. 

“Activists have discovered that the John Doe process itself can be the punishment they seek against innocent law enforcement officers in our community,” said Sen. Rob Hutton (R-Brookfield) during a Thursday afternoon hearing of the Senate Judiciary and Public Safety Committee. 

It was the second time Hutton has introduced a bill taking aim at Wisconsin’s John Doe law. The law, which applies to a wide range of crimes, allows a judge to review cases in which prosecutors have declined to file charges. A judge then decides whether probable cause for a crime exists. If so, then the judge may appoint special prosecutors to consider whether charges are needed. Hutton’s bill seeks to limit the law’s use against officers involved in fatal shootings. 

Hutton, calling the the law “archaic,” said that it’s “being often used with more frequency against police officers.” Any person or group can file a complaint with a court and request the initiation of a John Doe process, he said. If passed, Hutton’s bill would prevent the John Doe law from being used in cases where there is no new or “unused” evidence and where prosecutors already decided that a officer acted in self-defense.

Although Hutton didn’t clarify what might count as “new” or “unused” evidence, he did talk at length about his conversations with police officers. The senator described going on ride-alongs and watching officers respond to domestic violence calls, “legally going 90 miles per hour” to respond to emergencies, and how disrespected and criticized officers often felt. Hutton described having conversations with officers who said they felt more “timid” and feared being charged for something like a fatal shooting. Many officers, Hutton said, are leaving the job at a time when some agencies struggle with understaffing. 

Hutton said that two recent John Doe hearings involving police shootings have further damaged morale. A 2021 hearing reviewed the shooting of 25-year-old Jay Anderson Jr. by then-Wauwatosa Police officer Joseph Mensah. In 2016 Anderson, who was sleeping in his car in a park late at night when Mensah approached him, was the second person Mensah had fatally shot within a year. Over his five-year career at Wauwatosa PD Mensah was involved in three fatal shootings. Anderson, who Mensah said was reaching for a gun when he shot him, was the only person Mensah’s shot whose killing triggered a John Doe hearing. 

Another John Doe hearing in 2023 looked into the killing of Tony Robinson by Madison Police officer Matthew Kenny. The 19-year-old was killed in his apartment after officers responded to reports that he was acting erratically. His family was awarded a $3.3 million settlement in 2017, the largest for a police shooting in Wisconsin history at the time. 

Neither of the John Doe hearings succeeded, however. Although probable cause was found in Mensah’s case for homicide by negligent use of a dangerous weapon, special prosecutors declined to pursue charges. A judge declined to continue with Kenny’s case. Hutton referred to both hearings as a growing problem, but the Mensah and Kenny cases were the only two the senator and police lobbyists said they were aware of. Hutton pointed to Mensah, who attended the Thursday hearing to offer testimony, as the inspiration for the bill to limit John Doe proceedings. 

Other Republicans on the committee appeared supportive of changing the John Doe law. Sen. Andre Jacque (R- DePere) likened its use to “attacks on qualified immunity” for police, and Sen. Van Wanggaard (R-Racine) — committee chairman and a former police officer — as well as Sen. Jesse James (R-Altoona), another law enforcement official, and police lobbyists, stressed that officers need to be able to act without hesitation. 

Committee Democrats, however, were not sold. Sen. Dora Drake (D-Milwaukee), questioned the imbalance of power within the criminal justice system that the bill could create, and wondered whether Hutton had talked to representatives of the State Bar of Wisconsin, which is opposed to the bill. Hutton said he had not. Hutton described those bringing John Doe cases against officers as seeking to “demonize someone in law enforcement.” Whereas the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Wisconsin and the Civil Rights and Liberties Section of the State Bar of Wisconsin registered against the bill, two Wisconsin police associations and the State Lodge Fraternal Order of Police registered in support. 

Under the microscope 

Mensah’s shooting of Anderson was investigated by the Milwaukee Police Department before the John Doe. Their investigation in 2016 was reviewed by Milwaukee County District Attorney John Chisholm, who declined to charge Mensah. A separate civil rights review, and internal Wauwatosa PD review, were also conducted. In 2020, an independent investigator also found that Mensah had violated multiple department policies when he did a radio show interview. Hutton called the use of the John Doe law against police officers as “a gap that needs to be sown up and closed.” 

After the hearing was over, Hutton told Wisconsin Examiner that although he’s talked extensively with police officers and their families, that he has not spoken with family members of anyone killed by police, such as those in Mensah’s shootings. “I haven’t heard from any of them,” Hutton said of the Anderson family and other relatives of those killed by Mensah. “I would love to have conversations with any of them in that regard, I have not had any conversation with them at this point.” 

Sen. Kelda Roys (D-Madison) said that she was “troubled by the callousness” of the discussion of Hutton’s bill. Roys said police officers and the people they kill, as well as the family members of the deceased, are victims of a tragic situation. “You have to have accountability,” said Roys. “People need to be able to trust law enforcement.” Sen. LaTonya Johnson (D-Milwaukee) pointed out that John Doe hearings involving police officers are infrequent. 

Ryan Windorff, president of the Wisconsin Order of Police, called the allegations made during John Doe hearings “baseless.” Windorff said the hearings came into vogue after what he called an “anti-police movement” which had “infected” the country. Windorff said investigations are transparent, and that while families have rights, those rights do not “usurp” the ability of police officers to defend themselves. 

Mensah also testified at the hearing. In 2020, Mensah resigned from the Wauwatosa PD after being suspended by the Police and Fire Commission. He was later hired by the Waukesha County Sheriff’s Department, where he said he underwent “a unique hiring process.” Besides a background check, the sheriff and Defensive and Arrest Tactics (DAAT) experts did their own review, which he passed. Nevertheless, Mensah said that other agencies had been unwilling to  hire him because of “publicly-made…available information.” He added that the only public information besides police reports is the news, about which he said, “they have their right, they can be biased if they want.”

Mensah described the investigations and scrutiny after his three fatal shootings as “a constant drain.” He said that a John Doe proceeding could be brought “literally for anything,” and that he lives knowing that he could be charged with a crime any day. Mensah said police “aren’t granted the same protections and the same benefit of the doubt, or anything.”

“Unfortunately now, the way the law is written, the scale is heavily not in our favor,” said Mensah. 

He also took aim at the protests that focused on him in 2020 and 2021. Mensah said he didn’t understand why protesters demonstrated at the home of the woman he has since married and his parents’ house, chanting Black Lives Matter when he is a Black officer himself. “My race was completely stripped from me. I was no longer considered Black. I was considered just an officer,” he said. 

The protests and hearings were difficult to explain to his family and kids, Mensah added. “There’s been clear civil rights violations against myself, no one cares,” said Mensah. “No one cares when it’s violations against my children. No one cares when it’s violations against my wife.” Mensah’s wife, whose maiden name is Patricia Swayka, is a former Milwaukee police officer. In 2024, she appeared on a “Brady list” of officers with problematic histories obtained by TMJ4 through records requests. 

Mensah added that “this has been just a cold, calculated process of just harassing me, harassing my family, and using this law to take advantage of it. And there needs to be some type of change before it happens to someone else.” 

Mensah talked about a protest outside his house that escalated into a confrontation, in which a protester brought a gun and fired it. Several protesters were arrested for the incident, and three were charged with either handling, firing, or transporting a shotgun. Wauwatosa PD, the FBI, and Milwaukee PD specialized units all helped investigate the incident. 

During the hearing, Mensah said that the judge in his John Doe hearing “got it wrong” and that “the system as we have it is flawed, and people are using it not to get justice, but to get revenge. And specifically revenge against me.” Mensah said that he used to be a “very proactive” officer, and that Anderson’s shooting occurred when he was more proactive on the job. 

Mensah told the Senate committee “I did not have a chance to defend myself,” during the John Doe hearings. “Anytime something was brought up, I couldn’t question it.” According to court filings from the hearing, however, Mensah pleaded the Fifth Amendment, since he was subject to criminal charges. After the Senate committee hearing when asked about this, Mensah said “I honestly don’t remember.” He told Wisconsin Examiner that “I was instructed that we weren’t allowed to say anything in that hearing.” Mensah vaguely recalled “some mention of it”, referring to his Fifth Amendment pleading. “I honestly don’t remember if I did, or if there was questions about what if it got to a certain point.” 

 

19 – Brief in Support of Motion to Quash Subpoena of Joseph Mensah

 

When asked how the Anderson shooting was misrepresented by Anderson’s family and their lawyers, Mensah recalled people saying “I shot him 13 times in the back,” which wasn’t correct. Elsewhere Mensah saw people mistaking his ethnicity. “I get it…You can only report what you know…What you’re told, what you find out. Some stuff’s true, some stuff isn’t. Some stuff’s intentional, some stuff’s not. I can’t say what isn’t intentional, and what’s not. At the same time, it’s kind of like in law enforcement, if I’m interviewing someone and they tell me something, I can only take that at face value and put it forward.”

Asked whether he felt that his career in the Waukesha Sheriff’s Department had been negatively affected, he said, “All I know is I applied for the detective position, I got it. I applied for a lieutenant position, didn’t get that.” 

“In some ways I’ve been promoted, in some ways I haven’t,” he said. 

Democratic Sens. Johnson and Drake expressed skepticism in comments after the hearing.

Johnson compared the John Doe bill to Republican efforts to impose stricter regulations  on bail and parole, arguing that judges need more authority to keep violent offenders incarcerated. Yet Hutton’s John Doe bill, she pointed out, takes away discretion and power from judges. 

“It really boils down to who we decide are victims,” said Drake.

Clarification: This article has been updated to reflect that the Civil Rights and Liberties Section of the State Bar of Wisconsin, not the State Bar as a whole, registered against the bill to end John Doe proceedings against police officers.