In a surprising demonstration of how quickly legislative processes can proceed, an Assembly committee will decide Wednesday whether to recommend passage of a proposal that was introduced on Jan. 25 and received a public hearing three working days later on Jan. 27. While in the past other high-priority measures have moved with this blazing speed, it is unusual that AB-663 promoted by State Rep. Marlin Schneider, D-Wisconsin Rapids, would receive this treatment.
On one hand, this is another of Schneider's efforts to restrict public access to on-line court records. The bill has no Senate sponsor and only three co-sponsors from the Assembly: "Snarlin' Marlin himself, Fred Kessler and Annette Williams, both of Milwaukee, and Kelda Roys of Madison.
If it weren't for co-sponsor Kessler being chair of the Assembly State Affairs and Homeland Security Committee it is doubtful there even would have been a hearing on AB-663. Kessler explained the timing as "courtesy" to his colleague.
But on the other hand, the Schneider-Kessler gambit is an end-run around a different Assembly committee which heard testimony Oct. 1 on Schneider's AB-340, an earlier attempt to restrict the online site. Kessler, one of only two to join Schneider on that bill, is vice-chairman of that panel, the Committee on Criminal Justice which is chaired by Rep. Robert Turner of Racine.
Turner said he was surprised to read a Monday newspaper report of Kessler's hearing on Schneider's new bill. So were a lot of other people.
So what's the big deal here?
Simply put, Schneider and Kessler say too many people are dragging their court records around with them thus hurting chances for future employment, renting an apartment, hooking up with someone to date and making new friends. Wisconsinites are "snoops" and all about checking up on other people and then discriminating against them. Thus, Schneider says, the site popularly known as "CCAP" has become a "monster."
In some cases, Schneider and Kessler are correct. But based on testimony from the aggrieved presented at CCAP hearings over the past several years, it remains to be seen if CCAP itself is at the core of the misfortunes for those whose cases Schneider cites as "evidence." CCAP is simply a copy of a small portion of paper records publicly available in courthouses in each of Wisconsin's 72 counties.
Emotion runs high at these hearings. The personal stories are painful. That's why opponents of censoring the public record don't disregard Schneider's proposals even though his colleagues aren't flocking to join him.
At its core the issue is about whether people can distance themselves from their court records - or, literally shed them, as Schneider advocates. The public policy issue becomes, Should there be consequences for encounters with the court system? Or should be simply forget that someone was acquitted of a charge? Or that an initial charge was plea-bargained down to a lesser offense? Or that someone has a history of being arrested but not convicted?
Yes, let's readily concede that sometimes people are mistakenly arrested or falsely accused. But shouldn't we also recognize that it is a good thing not to be involved in the legal system? That there is a downside to being arrested and having to go to court?
Expunction is a legal term referring to the destruction or permanent removal of legal records, and there are specific provisions in Wisconsin law that permit it. The Wisconsin Supreme Court will hold a public hearing Feb. 24 on a petition to expand its use.
The Schneider-Kessler bill would reduce CCAP to merely an index of cases that end in criminal guilt, civil liability or eviction. Nothing more.
If there is merit to broadening provisions for expunging court records, then let's compile the data and examine the issue. Attacking public information through anti-CCAP bills amounts to killing the messenger.
On one hand, this is another of Schneider's efforts to restrict public access to on-line court records. The bill has no Senate sponsor and only three co-sponsors from the Assembly: "Snarlin' Marlin himself, Fred Kessler and Annette Williams, both of Milwaukee, and Kelda Roys of Madison.
If it weren't for co-sponsor Kessler being chair of the Assembly State Affairs and Homeland Security Committee it is doubtful there even would have been a hearing on AB-663. Kessler explained the timing as "courtesy" to his colleague.
But on the other hand, the Schneider-Kessler gambit is an end-run around a different Assembly committee which heard testimony Oct. 1 on Schneider's AB-340, an earlier attempt to restrict the online site. Kessler, one of only two to join Schneider on that bill, is vice-chairman of that panel, the Committee on Criminal Justice which is chaired by Rep. Robert Turner of Racine.
Turner said he was surprised to read a Monday newspaper report of Kessler's hearing on Schneider's new bill. So were a lot of other people.
So what's the big deal here?
Simply put, Schneider and Kessler say too many people are dragging their court records around with them thus hurting chances for future employment, renting an apartment, hooking up with someone to date and making new friends. Wisconsinites are "snoops" and all about checking up on other people and then discriminating against them. Thus, Schneider says, the site popularly known as "CCAP" has become a "monster."
In some cases, Schneider and Kessler are correct. But based on testimony from the aggrieved presented at CCAP hearings over the past several years, it remains to be seen if CCAP itself is at the core of the misfortunes for those whose cases Schneider cites as "evidence." CCAP is simply a copy of a small portion of paper records publicly available in courthouses in each of Wisconsin's 72 counties.
Emotion runs high at these hearings. The personal stories are painful. That's why opponents of censoring the public record don't disregard Schneider's proposals even though his colleagues aren't flocking to join him.
At its core the issue is about whether people can distance themselves from their court records - or, literally shed them, as Schneider advocates. The public policy issue becomes, Should there be consequences for encounters with the court system? Or should be simply forget that someone was acquitted of a charge? Or that an initial charge was plea-bargained down to a lesser offense? Or that someone has a history of being arrested but not convicted?
Yes, let's readily concede that sometimes people are mistakenly arrested or falsely accused. But shouldn't we also recognize that it is a good thing not to be involved in the legal system? That there is a downside to being arrested and having to go to court?
Expunction is a legal term referring to the destruction or permanent removal of legal records, and there are specific provisions in Wisconsin law that permit it. The Wisconsin Supreme Court will hold a public hearing Feb. 24 on a petition to expand its use.
The Schneider-Kessler bill would reduce CCAP to merely an index of cases that end in criminal guilt, civil liability or eviction. Nothing more.
If there is merit to broadening provisions for expunging court records, then let's compile the data and examine the issue. Attacking public information through anti-CCAP bills amounts to killing the messenger.
