Under current law, in order for an image or video to be child pornography, the child must be engaged in sexually explicit conduct. Under this bill, an image or video is child pornography if it depicts the child in a sexually suggestive manner, which means that it depicts: 1) a child’s less than completely and opaquely covered genitals, pubic area, or intimate parts in a manner that, by means of the posing, composition, format, or animated sensual details, emits sensuality with sufficient impact to concentrate prurient interest on the child; 2) any form of contact with a child’s genitals, pubic area, or intimate parts in a manner that, by means of the posing, composition, format, or animated sensual details, emits sensuality with sufficient impact to concentrate prurient interest on the child; or 3) a child in any other way that is for the purpose of sexual stimulation or gratification of any person who may view the depiction where the depiction does not have serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. Because this bill creates a new crime or revises a penalty for an existing crime, the Joint Review Committee on Criminal Penalties may be requested to pre
Analysis by the Legislative Reference Bureau
2017 Wisconsin Act 184 modified the procedure for determining the placement of a sexually violent person on supervised release. One change eliminated the ability of the court to choose a county other than the person’s county of residence to prepare a report identifying appropriate residential options for the person. Prior law had allowed the court, with good cause, to choose another county. The effect of this change was that the person could not be placed in a county that was not his or her county of residence. The changes made in 2017 Wisconsin Act 184 applied to any petition for supervised release pending as of March 30, 2018. This bill clarifies that a petition for supervised release was pending if the person had not been physically placed in a residence on supervised release.
This bill also requires the Department of Health Services to identify any person on supervised release whose residence is not in his or her county of residence and who had been physically placed in a residence on supervised release on or after March 30, 2018. If DHS identifies any such person, DHS must notify the court, and the court must revoke the person’s supervised release and order the person’s county of residence to prepare a new report.
Under 2017 Wisconsin Act 184, a county was required to prepare its report for the court within 180 days of the court order if the order was made on or after March 30, 2018, and before April 1, 2019, and within 120 days if the order was made on or after April 1, 2019. If the county failed to prepare its report in that time frame, the county would violate the person’s rights as a patient and would be subject to enforcement and damages for each violation. This bill eliminates the shortening of the time frame beginning on April 1, 2019, so that a county is required to prepare its report for the court within 180 days of the court order. This bill also allows a county, if it fails to prepare its report within 180 days, to request that the court make a finding that the county is making a good faith effort to prepare the report, and, if the court makes such a finding, the county is not subject to enforcement and damages.
Under current law, when a sexually violent person is placed on supervised
release, he or she may not be placed within 1,500 feet of a school, child care facility, place of worship, park, youth center, or other specified places. Under the bill, the county must consider the proximity of the placement to the places specified under current law, but the bill removes the exact distance.
The practice, known as civil forfeiture, is a popular way to raise revenue and is easily abused, and it has been the subject of widespread criticism across the political spectrum. The court’s decision will open the door to new legal arguments when the value of the property seized was out of proportion to the crimes involved.
This morning the Supreme Court heard oral argument in a dispute over the constitutionality of a federal law that requires convicted sex offenders to return to prison for at least five years – and possibly for the rest of their lives – if a judge finds that they have committed certain crimes. The def
Cook said the Department of Corrections asked Attorney General Brad Schimel to specify for the Department what “multiple convictions” means. Schimel, in a letter dated October 2017, said that multiple convictions would be anyone with more than one count of sexual assault.
Two former prosecutors told Madison365 that there is a difference between multiple counts and multiple convictions. If you get in a fight on State Street and hit the person in the face twice, that’s two counts. But we all understand it to be one fight. Each blow of the fight was not a separate criminal incident.
In any case, Schimel’s opinion was not acted on for a full year by the Department of Corrections. Department of Corrections Secretary John Litscher did not take action, but when he retired, new secretary Cathy Jess did. Finally, in October 2018, just weeks before Governor Scott Walker and Schimel were up for reelection, the Department reviewed hundreds of offenders and sent letters to Braam and 180 others.
There are many things that can be said about this article. The one I’d like all to take away from it is that, someone was forced to wear a device that after they obtained permission and was told that their device would be updated, a tax-payer paid worker didn’t update the record, then an innocent man was arrested and incarcerated for a period of time because of a paperwork mistake. Tax-payer funds were used to issue that warrant, to dispatch the officers do serve the warrant, and the cost to the family to go pick him up from jail once he was released from his false imprisonment, because of a paperwork mistake.
There was no accountability and I can assure you, the probation agent didn’t think anything of it, because to them it was just “a paperwork mistake” that had real life consequences for another human being.
The documents state that Ruffolo had asked his agent for permission to extend his curfew on Jan. 24 so he could attend an event. The agent gave him permission to be out until midnight. However, the GPS schedule was mistakenly not reset for the adjusted curfew.
Of these 122 opinions involving criminals, Neubauer took part in 78 and Hagedorn in 74, either singly or as part of three-judge panels. Both generally ruled against criminal defendants, rejecting arguments that evidence was improperly obtained or defendants received ineffective assistance of counsel, among other challenges.
In April, we will be voting for a new Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice. Here are two of the contenders. They come from the same court and this article is an analysis of the rulings they made and how they ruled vs what may be said during their campaign.
The link is safe, as I have read every article and click every link prior to posting.
What exactly does “implied consent” mean? In the Fourth Amendment area, consent—unmodified—means that a person has agreed to allow the police to do something that they might otherwise need a warrant or probable cause or some other justification to do. For example, say police pull you over for speeding while you are driving down the highway, and they then ask whether you mind if they search your car. A response of “not at all, officer; go right ahead” constitutes consent to the search of your vehicle. Without your permission, the Fourth Amendment would bar the vehicle search absent probable cause or some exception to the probable cause requirement. The theory behind consent is that if you say police may search or seize or do something else that they ordinarily may not do, then police act reasonably when they act on that consent. Consent searches and seizures are efficient, because they spare the police the need to jump through procedural hoops.
Here is the case that is referred to in the article: Mitchell v Wisconsin
MADISON, Wis. (AP) — A group of lawmakers is trying again to pass legislation that would allow convicts to ask judges to expunge their records.
The city of Brookfield is the latest municipality to change its ordinance regarding where convicted sex offenders can live.