00-1570 State v. Polshek

Listen to this article

Even though the parents may have known who the abuse reporters were, it was nevertheless an unlawful “disclosure” of the reporters’ identities within the meaning of the statute.

“Given the statute’s goal of protecting reporters’ identities, it is appropriate to interpret the word ‘disclose’ in a way that will support, rather than undercut, the statute’s main thrust. We conclude that the State’s interpretation of the word ‘disclose,’ which does not require that the disclosed information was a surprise or unknown to the recipient of the information, is most consistent with the purpose of Wis. Stat. sec. 48.981(7). …

“To effectuate the statute and avoid absurd results, we conclude that when one discloses information under sec. 48.981(7), the recipient’s previous knowledge of the information does not alter the fact that a disclosure was made. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order approving a jury instruction inconsistent with this conclusion.”

Further, the “legislative history, as well as the purpose of sec. 48.981(7), are consistent with both accomplishing a social good and imposing a high standard of care on agencies, officials and institutions who maintain confidential records. … Thus, the legislative history and purpose factors suggest that the legislature intended to impose strict liability for violations of sec. 48.981(7). …

“Upon considering all the factors relating to legislative intent, we conclude that the factors point toward strict liability. Accordingly, we hold that the legislature intended sec. 48.981(7) to be a strict liability offense. We reverse the trial court order requiring a jury instruction that contains an intent requirement.”

Reversed and remanded.

Recommended for publication in the official reports.

Dist III, Oconto County, Jeske, J., Cane C.J.

Attorneys:

For Appellant: J. N. Connelly, Oconto, et al.

For Respondent: Nila J. Robinson, Appleton