Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Expungement bills clear Assembly panels

By: Erika Strebel, [email protected]//June 8, 2017//

Expungement bills clear Assembly panels

By: Erika Strebel, [email protected]//June 8, 2017//

Listen to this article

State Assembly lawmakers have given preliminary approval to two bills that would overhaul the state’s process that allows young offenders to wipe their criminal histories clean.

Under current law, offenders may ask for elimination of certain criminal court records long as the crimes were committed before the age of 25. However, the process known as expungement has certain limitations. The request may only be made at sentencing proceedings and, should a court grant it, the records can only be eliminated after offenders have completed their sentence. Also, records of felonies or misdemeanors carrying a maximum prison term of more than six years cannot be eliminated.

The Assembly Committee on Judiciary gave its blessing Thursday to Assembly Bill 93, which would change the state’s expungement laws so offenders may instead seek expungement orders a year after completing their sentences. The fee for filing such a petition would be $100.

The committee voted 5-3 to approve AB 93, which was also amended to clarify that the proposal would apply prospectively and let judges deny expungement petitions under certain circumstances.

Rep. Gary Hebl, D-Sun Prairie, was the only Democrat to vote against the bill, saying he could not vote for an expungement proposal that was not retroactive and that the bill up for vote in the afternoon, AB 331, was better. Committee chair Rep. Jim Ott, R-Mequon, asked Hebl whether he would vote for AB 93 if it made it to the Assembly floor.

“I would vote for it if my vote would make a difference,” Hebl said. “If not I would try to amend it to make it better.”

A state Senate committee last month also gave AB 93 its blessing. The next step in the process would be for the bill to be scheduled for votes on the floor in both houses.

The other bill up for vote Thursday was Assembly Bill 331, which would, among other things, let someone who had not gotten an expungement order during sentencing proceedings to still file a petition for expungement after completing his or her sentence. Unlike AB 93, AB 331 is retroactive and expands current law rather than creating a wholly new procedure for expungement.

The Assembly Committee on Criminal Justice and Public Safety voted Thursday afternoon to recommend passage of the proposal on a 9-2 vote. The bill was also amended to include that an offender would only be allowed to petition a court three times for expungement and delay its effective date.

Ahead of the vote on AB 331, Ott noted that while he would vote for the bill, he reserved the right to vote against it should it be sent to the Assembly floor for a vote. Ott said he appreciated that the bill’s authors agreed to amend the bill to put limits on how many petitions could be filed but would also like to see a fee charged for the petition.

“What I am proposing is maybe the first time no fee, the second time a $50 fee and the third time a $100 fee,” he said.

Ott, who also leads the Judiciary Committee, had voted in favor of AB 93, saying he was on the fence as to which one he preferred.

“Both make quite a change,” he said. “Either one of these bills is a major step forward.”

On the other hand, State Rep. Andre Jacque, R-DePere, voted for AB 93 and against AB 331, saying he thought, based on testimony given at the public hearing, that there is a general consensus that judges should not be deciding whether to expunge an offender’s record at the time of sentencing.

State Rep. Cody Horlacher, R-Mukwonago, who is on both committees, voted against both proposals.

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests