Last-minute amendment delays vote on expungement bill

Listen to this article

Citing controversy over recent amendments, a state panel has delayed its vote on whether to recommend a bill that would change the state’s procedures for expungement.

Current law allows for criminal records to be destroyed or sealed as long as they were committed by someone who had not reached the age of 25. However, certain limits apply.

There can be no elimination of records of felonies or misdemeanors carrying a maximum prison term of more than six years, for instance. Current law also requires courts to issue expungement orders at sentencing proceedings, and allows the court records in question to be eliminated only after offenders have served out their sentences.

Senate Bill 53 would instead let offenders seek expungement orders a year after completing their sentences. The fee for filing such a petition would be $100.

Prosecutors, judges and others testified in favor of the bill during a public hearing held by the Senate Committee on Judiciary and Public Safety in April. However, they also suggested changes to the bill, prompting two amendments, one of which was circulated about an hour before the hearing.

The first amendment, brought by some of the authors of the bill, clarified that the bill would not be retroactive and that district attorneys, who administer the state’s crime-victim and witness programs, would be charged with notifying crime victims that a petition for expungement had been filed.

The amendment would also let judges deny a petition for expungement without a hearing if the petitioner were ineligible, had previously filed a petition in the same matter that was denied or had been charged with another crime.

The second amendment was introduced by the committee chairman, state Sen. Van Wanggaard, a Republican from Racine. The amendment is meant to clarify that ordinance violations cannot be expunged – a stipulation  in keeping with current law — and that judges may decide at sentencing that convictions may not be expunged.

Wanggaard said the amendment would give judges more discretion than they have now.

“It would give judges more flexibility on the front end of the decision-making process …. to save time on the back end,” Wangaard said.

The two Democrats on the committee, state Senators Fred Risser, of Madison, and Lena Taylor, of Milwaukee, protested that they did not have enough time to consider the amendment, noting that it had been circulated only an hour before the hearing. In usual circumstances, amendments to proposed state laws are circulated at least 24 hours before being put to a vote by a legislative committee

Risser noted that he had let himself be listed as a co-author of the bill when it was first introduced. Now, with the amendments, he is having second thoughts.

“You’ve drastically changed the context of the bill,” Risser said. “I’d like to hear what the Public Defender has to say about this.”

Wanggaard said he didn’t believe his amendment would be the subject of so much controversy. However, he rescheduled the vote on SB 53 for Thursday. Follow @erikastrebel