Similarly, under current law, a person 17 years of age or older who is alleged to
have violated a civil law or municipal ordinance is subject to the jurisdiction and
procedures of the circuit court or, if applicable, the municipal court, while a person
under 17 years of age who is alleged to have violated a civil law or municipal
ordinance, subject to certain exceptions, is subject to the jurisdiction and procedures
of the court assigned to exercise jurisdiction under the Juvenile Justice Code. The
bill raises from 17 to 18 the age at which a person who is alleged to have violated a
civil law or municipal ordinance is subject to the jurisdiction and procedures of the
circuit court or, if applicable, the municipal court.
Seventeen-year-old juvenile justice aids
The bill creates a sum sufficient appropriation under DCF for
youth-aids-related purposes but only to reimburse counties, beginning on January
1, 2024, for costs associated with juveniles who were alleged to have violated a state
or federal criminal law or any civil law or municipal ordinance at age 17.
Juvenile Justice Reform Review Committee
The bill creates a Juvenile Justice Reform Review Committee in DCF, with
members appointed by the governor. Under the bill, the committee is charged with
studying and providing recommendations to DCF and DOC on how to do all of the
following:
1. Increase the minimum age of delinquency.
2. Eliminate original adult court jurisdiction over juveniles.
3. Modify the waiver procedure for adult court jurisdiction over juveniles and
incorporate offenses currently subject to original adult court jurisdiction into the
waiver procedure.
4. Eliminate the serious juvenile offender program and create extended
juvenile court jurisdiction with a blended juvenile and adult sentence structure for
certain juvenile offenders.
5. Prohibit placement of a juvenile in a juvenile detention facility for a status
offense and limit sanctions and short-term holds in a juvenile detention facility to
cases in which there is a public safety risk.
6. Sunset long-term post-disposition programs at juvenile detention facilities.
7. Create a sentence adjustment procedure for youthful offenders.
8. Conform with the U.S. Constitution the statutes that mandate imposing
sentences of life imprisonment without parole or extended supervision to minors.
Under the bill, the committee terminates on September 16, 2024, and DCF and
DOC must submit in their 2025-27 biennial budget requests a request to implement
the committee's recommendations.
Daily rates for juvenile correctional services
The bill increases the per person daily rate paid by counties to DOC for services
provided to juveniles who are placed in a Type 1 juvenile correctional facility from
$1,178 in fiscal year 2022-23 to $1,246 in fiscal year 2023-24 and $1,268 in fiscal
year 2024-25.
Courts and procedure
Public defenders and district attorneys
Private bar reimbursement rate
Under current law, the state public defender (SPD) provides legal
representation for indigent persons in criminal, delinquency, and certain related
cases. The SPD assigns cases either to staff attorneys or to local private attorneys.
Generally, a private attorney who is assigned a case by the SPD is paid $70 per hour
for time spent related to the case and $25 per hour for time spent in travel related
to a case. The bill increases the rate the private attorney is paid for cases assigned
on or after July 1, 2023. Under the bill, a private attorney is paid $100 per hour for
time spent related to a case, excluding travel, and $50 per hour for time spent in
travel related to a case.
Annual caseload standards exemption
Under current law, the SPD may exempt up to 10 full-time assistant SPDs in
the trials subunit from annual caseload standards based on their need to perform
other assigned duties. Under the bill, beginning on July 1, 2023, the SPD may
exempt up to 25 such assistant SPDs from annual caseload standards based on their
need to perform other assigned duties.
Increase in deputy district attorney allocation
The bill increases the number of deputy district attorneys that may be
appointed in a prosecutorial unit with a population of 200,000 or more but less than
750,000 from three deputy district attorneys to four deputy district attorneys.
Circuit courts
Statutory addition of new circuit court branches
The bill adds to the statutory list of judicial circuit branches to reflect the circuit
court branches authorized under
2019 Wisconsin Act 184 to be added by the director
of state courts, with four designated to begin operation in August 2022 and four
designated to begin operation in August 2023.
Under current law, the statutes contain a list dividing, by administrative
district and judicial circuit, how many branches each circuit has. Act 184 authorized
the director of state courts to add four additional circuit court branches to begin
operation on August 1, 2022, and four additional circuit court branches to begin
operation on August 1, 2023. Act 184 further authorized the director of state courts
to allocate each new branch to any county that the director of state courts determined
to be in need of an additional circuit court branch and that established, or will have
established, by May 31 of the year the court would begin operation, the appropriate
infrastructure to support an additional circuit court branch. Act 184 further
authorized the director of state courts to require any county, as a condition for
receiving a circuit court branch allocation, to have established or to apply for a grant
to establish a drug court. The director of state courts allocated new circuit court
branches to Adams, Eau Claire, Vilas, and Waushara Counties, which were
designated to begin operation on August 1, 2022. The director of state courts has also
allocated new circuit court branches to Clark, Manitowoc, Sawyer, and Wood
Counties, and these are designated to begin operation on August 1, 2023.
Reimbursements for pretrial risk assessments
The bill requires the director of state courts to reimburse counties for circuit
court costs related to implementing the use of pretrial risk assessments. The director
of state courts must make the payments from a new biennial general program
operations appropriation created in the bill.
Certificates of qualification for employment
The bill eliminates the $20 application fee for an individual convicted of a crime
to apply for a certificate of qualification for employment. Under current law, certain
nonviolent offenders who have been released from confinement may apply to the
Council on Offender Employment for a certificate, and the council generally must
approve an offender's application if the council finds that the offender is not likely
to pose a risk to public safety, that the certificate will substantially assist the offender
in obtaining employment or occupational licensing or certification, and that the
offender is less likely to commit an additional criminal offense if the offender obtains
a certificate. Under current law, a certificate provides relief to an offender from
ineligibility for or disadvantage related to employment, occupational licensing, or
occupational certification that results from the offender's criminal record. A
certificate also incentivizes an employer to hire an offender by providing the
employer with limited immunity from civil liability related to acts or omissions of the
offender.
General courts and procedure
Extreme risk protection injunctions
Under current law, a person is prohibited from possessing a firearm, and must
surrender all firearms, if the person is subject to a domestic abuse injunction, a child
abuse injunction, or, in certain cases, a harassment or an individuals-at-risk
injunction. If a person surrenders a firearm because the person is subject to one of
those injunctions, the firearm may not be returned to the person until a court
determines that the injunction has been vacated or has expired and that the person
is not otherwise prohibited from possessing a firearm. A person who is prohibited
from possessing a firearm under such an injunction is guilty of a Class G felony for
violating the prohibition.
The bill creates an extreme risk protection temporary restraining order and
injunction to prohibit a person from possessing a firearm. Under the bill, either a
law enforcement officer or a family or household member of the person may file a
petition with a court to request an extreme risk protection injunction. The petition
must allege facts that show that the person is substantially likely to injure himself
or herself or another if the person possesses a firearm.
Under the bill, the petitioner may request the court to consider first granting
a temporary restraining order (TRO). If the petitioner requests a TRO, the petitioner
must include evidence that there is an immediate and present danger that the person
may injure himself or herself or another if the person possesses a firearm and that
waiting for the injunction hearing increases the immediate and present danger.
If the petitioner requests a TRO, the court must hear the petition in an
expedited manner. The judge must issue a TRO if, after questioning the petitioner
and witnesses or relying on affidavits, the judge determines that it is substantially
likely that the petition for an injunction will be granted and the judge finds good
cause to believe there is an immediate and present danger that the person will injure
himself or herself or another if the person has a firearm and that waiting for the
injunction hearing may increase the immediate and present danger. If the judge
issues a TRO, the TRO is in effect until the injunction hearing, which must occur
within 14 days. The TRO must require a law enforcement officer to personally serve
the person with the order and to require the person to immediately surrender all
firearms in his or her possession. If a law enforcement officer is unable to personally
serve the person, then the TRO requires the person to surrender within 24 hours all
firearms to a law enforcement officer or a firearms dealer and to provide the court
a receipt indicating the surrender occurred.
At the injunction hearing, the court may grant an extreme risk protection
injunction ordering the person to refrain from possessing a firearm if the court finds
by clear and convincing evidence that the person is substantially likely to injure
himself or herself or another if the person possesses a firearm. If the person was not
subject to a TRO, the court also must order the person to surrender all firearms he
or she possesses. An extreme risk protection injunction is effective for up to one year
and may be renewed. A person who is subject to an extreme risk protection
injunction may petition to vacate the injunction.
A person who possesses a firearm while subject to an extreme risk protection
TRO or injunction is guilty of a Class G felony. If a person surrenders a firearm
because the person is subject to an extreme risk protection TRO or injunction, the
firearm may not be returned to the person until a court determines that the TRO has
expired or the injunction has been vacated or has expired and that the person is not
otherwise prohibited from possessing a firearm.
Finally, a person who files a petition for an extreme risk protection injunction,
knowing the information in the petition to be false, is guilty of the crime of false
swearing, a Class H felony.
Qui tam actions for false claims
The bill restores a private individual's authority to bring a qui tam claim
against a person who makes a false or fraudulent claim for Medical Assistance,
which was eliminated in
2015 Wisconsin Act 55, and further expands qui tam actions
to include any false or fraudulent claims to a state agency. A qui tam claim is a claim
initiated by a private individual on his or her own behalf and on behalf of the state
against a person who makes a false claim relating to Medical Assistance or other
moneys from a state agency. The bill provides that a private individual may be
awarded up to 30 percent of the amount of moneys recovered as a result of a qui tam
claim, depending upon the extent of the individual's contribution to the prosecution
of the action. The individual may also be entitled to reasonable expenses incurred
in bringing the action, as well as attorney fees. The bill includes additional changes
not included in the prior law to incorporate provisions enacted in the federal Deficit
Reduction Act of 2005 and conform state law to the federal False Claims Act,
including expanding provisions to facilitate qui tam actions and modifying the bases
for liability to parallel the liability provisions under the federal False Claims Act.
In addition to qui tam claims, DOJ has independent authority to bring a claim
against a person for making a false claim for Medical Assistance. The bill modifies
provisions relating to DOJ's authority to parallel the liability and penalty standards
relating to qui tam claims and to parallel the forfeiture amounts provided under the
federal False Claims Act.
DOT data sharing
Under current law, DOT annually transmits to the director of state courts a list
of persons residing in the state that includes certain information about those
persons. Each year, the director of state courts uses that information, along with
other information available to the director of state courts, to compile a master list of
potential jurors for use by the state circuit courts. The bill requires DOT to also send
that list to the clerks of court for the federal district courts within this state.
County law libraries
The bill creates an appropriation account to receive any amounts from counties
for providing materials or other services under contracts for county law libraries.
Crimes
Expungement
Under current law, a court may order a person's criminal record expunged of a
crime if all of the following apply:
1. The maximum term of imprisonment for the crime is six years or less (Class
H felony and below).
2. The person committed the crime before the age of 25.
3. The person had not been previously convicted of a felony.
4. The crime was not a violent felony.
Current law specifies that the expungement order must be made only at
sentencing and then the record is expunged when the person completes his or her
sentence. If the court does not order a criminal record expunged at sentencing,
current law generally does not provide for another means to expunge the criminal
record.
The bill makes several changes to the expungement process. The bill removes
the condition that the person committed the crime before the age of 25. (The bill
retains the requirements that the crime be no greater than a Class H felony, the
person had no previous felony convictions, and the crime was not a violent felony.)
The bill makes certain crimes ineligible for expungement, such as traffic crimes, the
crime of violating a domestic abuse restraining order or injunction, criminal
trespass, and criminal damage to a business. The bill also allows the sentencing
court to order that a person's record not be eligible for expungement.
The bill continues to allow the court to order at sentencing that the record be
expunged when the person completes his or her sentence. The bill also provides that,
if the court did not make an order at sentencing, the person may file a petition with
the sentencing court after he or she completes his or her sentence. Upon receipt of
the petition, the court must review the petition and then may order the record
expunged or may deny the petition. If the court denies the petition, the person may
not file another petition for two years. The person must pay a $100 fee to the county
for a second petition, and no person may file more than two petitions per crime. The
bill limits a person to one expungement. The changes described in this paragraph
retroactively apply to persons who were convicted of a crime before the bill takes
effect.
The bill provides that, if a record is expunged of a crime, that crime is not
considered a conviction for employment purposes and specifies that employment
discrimination because of a conviction record includes requesting a person to supply
information regarding a crime if the record has been expunged of the crime. Finally,
the bill provides that it is not employment discrimination because of conviction
record for the Law Enforcement Standards Board to consider a conviction that has
been expunged with respect to applying any standard or requirement for the
certification, decertification, or required training of law enforcement officers, tribal
law enforcement officers, jail officers, and juvenile detention officers.
Immunity for certain controlled substances offenses
Current law grants immunity from prosecution for possessing a controlled
substance to a person, called an aider, who summons or provides emergency medical
assistance to another person because the aider believes the other person is suffering
from an overdose or other adverse reaction to a controlled substance. Under
2017
Wisconsin Act 33, an aider was also immune from having probation, parole, or
extended supervision revoked for possessing a controlled substance under the same
circumstances. Act 33 also granted the aided person immunity from having
probation, parole, or extended supervision revoked for possessing a controlled
substance when an aider seeks assistance for the aided person. The immunity
applied only if the aided person completes a treatment program as part of his or her
probation, parole, or extended supervision. Act 33 also provided that a prosecutor
must offer an aided person who is subject to prosecution for possessing a controlled
substance a deferred prosecution agreement if the aided person completes a
treatment program.
The expanded immunities under Act 33 were temporary, and expired on August
1, 2020. The bill permanently restores these expanded immunities from Act 33.
Alternatives to prosecution for disorderly conduct
The bill requires a prosecutor to offer to certain disorderly conduct defendants
a deferred prosecution agreement or an agreement in which the defendant stipulates
to his or her guilt of a noncriminal ordinance violation. Under the bill, a prosecutor
must offer alternatives to prosecution to a person who has committed a disorderly
conduct violation if it is the person's first disorderly conduct violation, the person has
not committed a similar violation previously, and the person has not committed a
felony in the previous three years. Under the bill, if the person is offered a deferred
prosecution agreement, he or she must be required to pay restitution, if applicable.
education
Primary and secondary education: general school aids and revenue limits
School district revenue limits; per pupil increase
Current law generally limits the total amount of revenue per pupil that a school
district may receive from general school aids and property taxes in a school year to
the amount of revenue allowed per pupil in the previous school year plus a per pupil
adjustment, if any, as provided by law. Current law does not provide a per pupil
adjustment in the 2021-22 school year and any school year thereafter.
For purposes of calculating school district revenue limits, the bill provides a per
pupil increase of $350 for the 2023-24 school year and $650 for the 2024-25 school
year. Under the bill, in the 2025-26 school year and thereafter, the per pupil
adjustment is the per pupil increase for the previous school year as adjusted for any
increase in the consumer price index.
Low revenue ceiling; per pupil amount and restrictions
Current law provides a minimum per pupil revenue limit for school districts,
known as the revenue ceiling. Under current law, the per pupil revenue ceiling is
$10,000 in the 2020-21 school year and each school year thereafter. The bill
increases the per pupil revenue ceiling to $10,450 for the 2023-24 school year and
to $11,200 for the 2024-25 school year and, beginning in the 2025-26 school year,
annually adjusts the revenue ceiling for any increase in the consumer price index.
Current law also provides that during the three school years following a school
year in which an operating referendum fails in a school district, the school district's
revenue ceiling is the revenue ceiling that applied in the school year during which
the referendum was held. The bill eliminates the provision under which a school
district's revenue ceiling is the revenue ceiling from a previous school year because
an operating referendum failed in the school district.
Counting pupils enrolled in four-year-old kindergarten
The bill changes how a pupil enrolled in a four-year-old kindergarten is
counted by a school district for purposes of state aid and revenue limits. Under
current law, beginning with state aid paid in the 2024-25 school year and revenue
limits calculated for the 2024-25 school year, a pupil enrolled in a four-year-old
kindergarten program is counted as 0.5 pupil unless the program provides at least
87.5 additional hours of outreach activities, in which case the pupil is counted as 0.6
pupil. Under the bill, if the four-year-old kindergarten program requires full-day
attendance by pupils for five days a week, a pupil enrolled in the program is counted
as one pupil.
High poverty aid
Under current law, if at least 50 percent of a school district's enrollment is
eligible for a free or reduced-price lunch under the federal school lunch program, the
school district is eligible for a prorated share of the amount appropriated as high
poverty aid. For school districts other than a first class city school district (currently
only Milwaukee Public Schools), high poverty aid is considered state aid for purposes
of revenue limits. For MPS, high poverty aid must be used to reduce the school
property tax levied for the purpose of offsetting the aid reduction attributable to the
Milwaukee Parental Choice Program. The bill eliminates high poverty aid beginning
in the 2023-24 school year.
Primary and secondary education: categorical aids
Per pupil aid
Under current law, per pupil aid is a categorical aid paid to school districts. Per
pupil aid is funded from a sum sufficient appropriation and is not considered for
purposes of revenue limits. Under current law, the amount of per pupil aid paid to
a school district is calculated using a three-year average of the number of pupils
enrolled in the school district and a per pupil amount set by law. Under current law,
in the 2022-23 school year and each school year thereafter, the per pupil amount is
$742. Under the bill, the per pupil amount is $766 in the 2023-24 school year and
$811 in the 2024-25 school year and each year thereafter.
Funding for special education and school age parents programs
The bill changes the rate at which the state reimburses school boards, operators
of independent charter schools, cooperative educational service agencies (CESAs),
and county children with disabilities education boards (CCDEBs) for costs incurred
to provide special education and related services to children with disabilities and for
school age parents programs (eligible costs). Under current law, the state reimburses
the full cost of special education for children in hospitals and convalescent homes for
orthopedically disabled children. After those costs are paid, the state reimburses
remaining eligible costs from the amount remaining in the appropriation account at
a rate that distributes the full amount appropriated. DPI estimates that, in the
2022-23 school year, the reimbursement rate is 31.7 percent.
The bill changes the appropriation to a sum sufficient and provides that,
beginning in the 2023-24 school year, after full payment of hospital and convalescent
home costs, the remaining costs are reimbursed at 60 percent of eligible costs.
Currently, DPI provides 1) special education aid to school districts, independent
charter schools, CESAs, and CCDEBs; 2) aid to school districts, CESAs, and
CCDEBs for providing physical or mental health treatment services to private school
and tribal school pupils; and 3) aid for school age parents programs to school districts
only.
High-cost special education aid
The bill changes the rate at which the state reimburses school boards, operators
of independent charter schools, CESAs, and CCDEBs for nonadministrative costs in
excess of $30,000 incurred for providing special education and related costs to a child
(aidable costs). Under current law, 90 percent of aidable costs are paid from a sum
certain appropriation. If the amount of the appropriation is insufficient to pay the
full 90 percent of aidable costs, DPI prorates payments among eligible applicants.
For the 2022-23 school year, DPI estimates that the reimbursement rate is 39.5
percent of aidable costs under this aid program.
The bill changes the appropriation to a sum sufficient appropriation and
provides that aidable costs are reimbursed at the following rates:
1. In the 2023-24 school year, 45 percent of aidable costs.
2. In the 2024-25 school year and in each school year thereafter, 60 percent of
aidable costs.
