Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

An outrageous proposal to limit CCAP

By: dmc-admin//July 20, 2009//

An outrageous proposal to limit CCAP

By: dmc-admin//July 20, 2009//

Listen to this article

Suppose you are considering dating a woman. But first you run her name through the Consolidated Court Automation Programs (CCAP), and based on what you find there, decide that wouldn’t be such a good idea.

Suppose you own a duplex, and you reject an application for tenancy after CCAP reveals the applicant has been evicted from several other units and is a convicted drug dealer.

Suppose you are an employer, and you reject a job applicant because of a prior conviction you found on CCAP.

Depending on the circumstances, that last hypothetical could expose you to a lawsuit for discrimination based on an employee’s arrest or conviction record. But in the first two instances, you’re not violating any law; you’re just being a prudent suitor or landlord, as the case may be.

At least for now that’s the case. Current law doesn’t require landlords to rent to serial deadbeats and drug dealers. The Wisconsin Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination based on race, gender and a host of other factors, but neither a criminal record nor past failure to pay rent are included as protected criteria.

But a trio of Wisconsin representatives have introduced a bill that would require a landlord to inform the applicant, “I looked you up on CCAP, and saw that you’re a convicted drug dealer, with a history of violence and not paying rent, so I’ve decided not to rent to you.”

The bill provides, “Any person who requests information from [CCAP] shall inform the person who is the subject of the request that he or she sought information about that person if he or she denies that person employment, housing, or any public accommodation.”

If the landlord fails to do this, the penalty is a $1,000 fine for each violation.

The sponsors also want to make it really easy for convicted criminals to harass landlords they think have violated this law. The bill would require the Director of State Courts to keep a log of the name of every person who uses CCAP and record every search the user performs.

I remember when CCAP first started. What a wonder it was. Instead of having to go to the courthouse to find out if an opposing party’s star witness had a lengthy criminal record, or anything else you needed to know, you could look it up from the comfort of your office.

Over the years, the Legislature has whittled it down and whittled it down, so that CCAP is just a shadow of its former self.

But up until now, anyway, the changes that have been made have at least been the result of well-intentioned (we can respectfully disagree about whether they are misguided or not) efforts to protect people’s privacy.

In other words, the changes have been in the nature of a shield.

However, with this new legislation, CCAP would become a sword against people who take perfectly legal action to protect themselves, their property and their neighborhoods from ne’er-do-wells.

The proposal contains another nefarious provision.

At some point in every lawyer’s career, the attorney gets confused as to the exact date, time, and location of a particular hearing.

But no longer will you be able to just log on to CCAP to clear up the situation. No information about a case will be available until the case is over and a conviction or a finding of liability is entered. No longer could you (or your clients) check the status of a pending case with just a few clicks on a keyboard.

This outrageous bill, numbered “2009 Assembly Bill 340,” was introduced on July 8 by Representatives Marlin Schneider, Fred Kessler, and Annette Polly Williams.

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