The proposed bill would prevent courts from issuing charges against officers involved in fatal incidents unless new evidence emerges, a response to what supporters of law enforcement call “never-ending” investigations that discourage law enforcement from staying in the profession.
Under Wisconsin’s John Doe laws, any citizen can petition a judge to open an investigation, even if a district attorney has already ruled out charges. Hutton and Moses argue this provision allows individuals to repeatedly challenge police conduct in closed cases, leading to legal and financial burdens for officers who have already been exonerated. According to Hutton, officers are leaving the profession due to the risk of indefinite legal battles, which can result in administrative suspensions and financial strain.
This bill builds on previous efforts to narrow John Doe proceedings. Last session’s proposal, SB-517 and AB-544 passed both chambers but was vetoed by Gov. Tony Evers. The Senate successfully overrode the veto, but the Assembly failed to do so. This time, the bill is more narrowly tailored to apply exclusively to law enforcement, a change its sponsors hope will gain bipartisan support and avoid a gubernatorial veto.
The debate over the bill highlights broader concerns about accountability and police oversight. Critics may argue that limiting John Doe proceedings could weaken civilian oversight and make it harder to challenge law enforcement misconduct. However, supporters counter that officers should not be subjected to repeated investigations after being cleared, particularly when legal proceedings can be weaponized to intimidate police.
The Wisconsin State Lodge Fraternal Order of Police has voiced strong support for the bill, stating that law enforcement officers subjected to repeated investigations struggle to move on from incidents and return to duty. Officers still employed in the profession often face administrative suspensions while dealing with ongoing legal challenges, exacerbating staffing shortages at police departments already struggling to meet minimum personnel levels.
The revised bill’s fate remains uncertain, but its sponsors are pushing for swift action to prevent it from getting lost in end-of-session gridlock. Whether it can gain enough support to withstand another potential veto by Gov. Evers remains to be seen.
