99-3040 State ex rel. Kaminski v. Schwarz

Listen to this article

“We cannot agree that the legislature intended to prohibit notification of potentially vulnerable persons; nothing in the language of the statutes or in the legislative history supports such a conclusion. Such a conclusion would invalidate the notice in rule 16-3 for persons with whom the offender may become intimate, and would make it difficult for agents to work with potential employers, landlords, social service agencies, and professionals not specifically listed in Wis. Stat. sec. 301.46, without going through separate law enforcement agencies to convey information about offenders.

“We conclude instead that when the legislature enacted 1997 Wis. Act 6 it acted on an intent to expand notification and protect the public. It augmented the then current practice of probation agent notification by allowing law enforcement to inform anyone in the general public of information regarding the sex offenders in a community, even without a request.”

“We find that the rule requiring Kaminski to notify his immediate neighbors of his sex offender status was reasonably tailored to further the dual goals of probation, which are ‘to protect the public from criminal conduct and to help the probationer become a useful member of society.’… Requiring Kaminski to admit to his behavior and status will serve to help his rehabilitation by making him take responsibility for his actions. It will also ensure that his neighbors know Kaminski’s status before making any decision regarding their interaction with him. Whether his neighbors want to socialize with Kaminski or avoid him, the legislature intended that the public be informed about sex offenders in their communities and protected from them.”

Reversed.

DISSENTING OPINION: Abrahamson, C.J. “[T]he legislature crafted a detailed and extensive law that expressly sets forth who can release sex offender information, to whom it can be released, and the circumstances under which it can be released. Violations of the statute’s requirement that the information be kept confidential are punishable by a fine or imprisonment or both… The statute does not fully incorporate the DOC workgroup’s recommendations. In particular, the exceptions to the statute’s requirement that the information be kept confidential do not authorize the probation agent to disclose the confidential information to the offender’s immediate neighbors.”

Prosser, J.

Attorneys:

For Appellant: Donald T. Lang, Madison

For Respondent: William C. Wolford, James E. Doyle, Madison