Criminal Law, Corrections, and Courts

Wisconsin law grants immunity in various contexts in which a person’s actions or inactions might otherwise result in civil liability, such as payment of damages or compliance with a court order. Immunity laws are enacted to encourage aid to others in emergent situations and thus are commonly referred to as “Good Samaritan laws.” This issue brief describes specific Wisconsin statutes affording immunity from civil liability to persons in circumstances where aid to others may commonly arise, including at the scene of an emergency, while working at a school, through use of an automated external defibrillator (AED), or by forcible entry into a vehicle.

Wisconsin law requires a person to register as a sex offender in a variety of circumstances, including for committing a “sex offense.” A court may also order any person convicted of certain other crimes to register as a sex offender if the court determines that the person’s conduct was “sexually motivated” and that it would be in the interest of public protection to require the person to register. Generally, a person required to register must do so for 15 years, though in certain circumstances, a person must register for life. 

This issue brief summarizes the effect of a finding of interspousal battery or domestic abuse on the issues of legal custody and physical placement of a child in actions affecting the family.

Juvenile courts generally have jurisdiction over juveniles 10 years of age or older who violate criminal laws in Wisconsin. However, adult criminal courts have jurisdiction over juveniles who commit certain crimes or who are “waived” into adult court. This information memorandum discusses the prosecution and sentencing of juveniles in adult court.

A pardon is an official act of forgiveness for a criminal offense. A pardon relieves an offender of many lasting legal consequences of conviction by restoring the individual’s civil rights.

Pardon is one form of clemency offered by governments in many countries and states around the world, including the U.S. federal government and all 50 U.S. state governments. Other forms of clemency include reprieve, which is the temporary delay of punishment, or commutation, which is a reduction in punishment.

In the criminal justice system, sanctions include criminal punishments and civil remedies. The distinction between them is important, as a criminal punishment triggers a number of constitutional protections. For instance, a criminal punishment that purports to apply retroactively would be an unconstitutional ex post facto law. However, as the Supreme Court of Wisconsin has said, “… [I]t is not always clear whether a particular sanction constitutes punishment.” Constitutional protections that are relevant to this distinction include the Double Jeopardy Clause, the right to be informed of the maximum potential punishment during a plea colloquy, the right to have all facts increasing a sentence be found by a jury, and the right against self-incrimination.

This issue brief is intended to provide background information that may be helpful as legislators draft bills and consider the potential use of criminal penalties and civil remedies.

This issue brief summarizes State v. Genous, 2021 WI 50, in which the Court held that, under the totality of the circumstances, a law enforcement officer had reasonable suspicion of drug activity to stop a vehicle and question its occupants. A separate issue brief summarizes State v. VanBeek, 2021 WI 51, in which the Court applied two separate totality of circumstances analyses: one to determine that what was initially a consensual encounter between law enforcement and the defendant was transformed into a seizure that required reasonable suspicion and one to determine that the law enforcement officer did not have sufficient reasonable suspicion to justify the seizure.

This issue brief summarizes State v. VanBeek, 2021 WI 51, in which the Wisconsin Supreme Court applied a totality of circumstances analysis to determine whether, and when, an initially consensual encounter between law enforcement and the defendant was transformed into a seizure that required reasonable suspicion, and whether the law enforcement officer did not have sufficient reasonable suspicion to justify the seizure.