Opinion ID: 1253046
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Wisconsin's Sex Offender Registration Law

Text: [3] ¶ 28. Resolving this case requires us to examine and interpret Wis. Stat. §§ 301.45 and 301.46, to determine whether they occupy the field regulating the dissemination of sex offender registration information or prohibit rule 16-25 in these circumstances. When interpreting a statute, we aim to discern the intent of the legislature, and to give effect to that intent. County of Jefferson v. Renz, 231 Wis. 2d 293, 301, 603 N.W.2d 541 (1999). [4-7] ¶ 29. We begin with the language of the statute. State v. Piddington, 2001 WI 24, ¶ 14, 241 Wis. 2d 754, 623 N.W.2d 528. If the statutory language is clear, we need not look beyond it to determine legislative intent. HMO-W Inc. v. SSM Health Care Sys., 2000 WI 46, ¶ 19, 234 Wis.2d 707, 611 N.W.2d 250. However, if the statute is unclear or ambiguous, Teague v. Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians, 2000 WI 79, ¶ 17, 236 Wis. 2d 384, 612 N.W.2d 709, we may utilize extrinsic aids such as legislative history and statutory purpose for guidance. McDonough v. DWD, 227 Wis. 2d 271, 277, 595 N.W.2d 686 (1999). Statutory language is ambiguous if it is capable of being understood in more than one way or in more than one sense by reasonably well-informed persons. Teague, 236 Wis. 2d 384, ¶ 17.
¶ 30. Wisconsin Stat. §§ 301.45 and 301.46 govern sex offender registration and access to information in the sex offender registry. Section 301.45 requires certain persons who have committed sex offenses or sexually motivated crimes to comply with the reporting requirements set forth in the statute. Wis. Stat. § 301.45(1). [6] A person required to register must supply information including his or her name and aliases, and physical characteristics such as date of birth, gender, race, height, weight, hair color, and eye color. Wis. Stat. § 301.45(2)(a). The person must also supply information regarding his or her conviction; supervision; and supervising agency; the addresses of the person's residence, workplace, and school; and the date the person's information was last updated. Id. ¶ 31. A registry of each person's information is maintained by the DOC. Id. The DOC is required to keep the information confidential, except as provided in. . .[§ ]301.46, [and] except as needed for law enforcement purposes. Wis. Stat. § 301.45(7)(a). [7] ¶ 32. Wisconsin Stat. § 301.46 governs access to information contained in the sex offender registry. It requires that the DOC notify law enforcement agencies and the interested victims of a sex offender's previous crimes. It also allows community agencies and the general public to request sex offender registry information. ¶ 33. When a sex offender registers under Wis. Stat. § 301.45, the DOC must immediately make all the information that the registrant supplies available to the chief of police of the community and the sheriff of the county in which the person is residing, working, or attending school. Wis. Stat. § 301.46(2)(a). [8] ¶ 34. Upon request, a victim of a registered person's crimes and members of the victim's family are also entitled to notification of information including the registered person's name and address, the agency supervising the person, and the date of the most recent update of the information. Wis. Stat. § 301.46(3)(c). ¶ 35. Numerous agencies and organizations other than law enforcement agencies (including schools; day care providers; group homes; and the departments of justice, public instruction, and health and family services) are entitled to information about specific sex offenders upon request. Wis. Stat. § 301.46(4). [9] The DOC is required to provide to these entities the name and any aliases of a registered sex offender, the date of the person's conviction or commitment, and the date the information was most recently updated. Wis. Stat. § 301.46(4)(b). ¶ 36. Members of the general public may also receive sex offender registry information. The DOC, a police chief, or a sheriff may disclose sex offender registry information to any person who requests information about a specific registered person. [10] Information may be provided if in the opinion of the department or the police chief or sheriff, providing the information is necessary to protect the public. Wis. Stat. § 301.46(5). ¶ 37. The police chief or sheriff has discretion to disclose information about a registered sex offender to a victim, an organization, or to the general public if the police chief or sheriff believes the information is necessary to protect the public. [11] Wis. Stat. § 301.46(2)(e). This disclosure may be made without any request. Id. (emphasis added). ¶ 38. Finally, the DOC is authorized to provide sex offender registration information to anyone who makes an open records request for that information. Wis. Stat. § 301.46(9). ¶ 39. The parties urge different interpretations of Wis. Stat. §§ 301.45 and 301.46. Kaminski asserts that §§ 301.45 and 301.46 occupy the field regarding access to sex offender registry information, by establishing detailed notification and access policies and procedures. He claims that in creating §§ 301.45 and 301.46, the legislature intended to balance the public's interest in safety and protection with the offender's right to privacy, and to limit access to sex offender registration information. He contends that pursuant to this goal, § 301.45(7) requires that all sex offender registration information shall be kept confidential except as provided in § 301.46. Kaminski argues that the legislature intended to restrict notification or access to information to only those persons or entities specified in § 301.46, and gave the general public access only upon request and at the discretion of the police chief or sheriff. ¶ 40. The State counters that nothing in the language of Wis. Stat. §§ 301.45 and 301.46 demonstrates an intent by the legislature to occupy the field of sex offender notification, or to restrict the authority of the DOC or a probation agent to impose reasonable rules of probation on probationers who are also registered sex offenders. ¶ 41. This court has determined that Wis. Stat. §§ 301.45 and 301.46 reflect an intent to protect the public and assist law enforcement and are related to community protection. State v. Bollig, 2000 WI 6, ¶¶ 21-22, 232 Wis. 2d 561, 605 N.W.2d 199. Mindful of these legislative intentions, we think it unlikely that the legislature intended, by creating §§ 301.45 and 301.46, to prohibit probation agents from requiring actively-supervised convicted sex offenders to disclose limited information to specified persons or narrow categories of persons such as employers, landlords, neighbors, and new social acquaintances, whom offenders are likely to encounter, perhaps on a daily basis. Such a prohibition would undercut the mission of probation and parole and contradict the legislature's intent of protecting the public. We would find it incongruous for curious strangers to have access to information because the general public is listed in the statute, but for unsuspecting next-door neighbors with children not to have the same information because they were not specifically listed by category and were not on alert to make a request. [8] ¶ 42. Kaminski rather overstates the implications of this court's decision in Bollig. Bollig states that the primary purpose of the sex offender registration statute is to protect the public and assist law enforcement. 232 Wis. 2d 561, ¶ 21. It explains that the DOC convened a Sex Offender Community Notification workgroup to assist legislators in developing balanced community notification legislationlegislation that balanced community protection with the offender's community reintegration needs. Id. at ¶ 22. We noted in Bollig that Wis. Stat. § 301.46 does not automatically grant the public carte blanche access to the information [in the sex offender registry]. Id. at ¶ 24. However, this is a far cry from saying that the DOC engineered legislation to curtail the supervisory powers of its own agents and created for sex offenders some right of privacy in information that is fundamentally public record. ¶ 43. Wisconsin Stat. § 301.46 grants both law enforcement and the DOC broad authority to disseminate information to the general public if either determines that such disclosure is necessary to protect the public. This broad discretion to disclose registry information is evident in Wis. Stat. §§ 301.46(2)(e), 301.46(5)(a), and 301.46(5)(b)4. Section 301.46(2)(e) affords the police chief or sheriff the authority to provide any of the information to which he or she has access under this subsection. . . to members of the general public if in the opinion of the police chief or sheriff, providing that information is necessary to protect the public. § 301.46(2)(e) (emphasis added). ¶ 44. A number of law enforcement agencies in Wisconsin communities, including the police departments in the cities of Milwaukee, Madison, Waukesha, and Kenosha, have made sex offender information available to the general public by use of Internet sites listing the registered sex offenders residing in the respective communities, and providing extensive information about them. [12] ¶ 45. Additionally, both law enforcement officials and the DOC are authorized to disclose any information they deem appropriate about any registered person, to any person who requests it, if in the opinion of the DOC or the police chief or sheriff, providing the information is necessary to protect the public. Wis. Stat. § 301.46(5)(a); see also Wis. Stat. § 301.45(5)(b)4. ¶ 46. We cannot conclude from the language of Wis. Stat. §§ 301.45 and 301.46 that the legislature, in giving such broad discretion to the DOC to give any information about any sex offender to anyone who requests it, intended to prohibit the DOC from imposing a rule of probation requiring a convicted sex offender to inform specified persons of his or her status. ¶ 47. Recently, the legislature amended Wis. Stat. § 301.46 to broaden the authority of the DOC to disseminate sex offender information. 1999 Wis. Act 89. The newly created subsection (5n) of § 301.46 requires that the DOC provide access to information concerning persons registered under s. 301.45 by creating and maintaining an Internet site [13] and by any other means that the department determines is appropriate. Wis. Stat. § 301.46(5n) (1999-2000) (emphasis added). The DOC is to provide any person using the Internet site the information to which the person is otherwise entitled under §§ 301.45 and 301.46, and is also authorized to provide any user with other information that the DOC determines is necessary to protect the public. Id. [9] ¶ 48. While we determined the legislative intent of Wis. Stat. §§ 301.45 and 301.46 in Bollig, we did not address whether the legislature intended that the statutes occupy the field regarding sex offender registration notification. 232 Wis. 2d 561, ¶¶ 21-22. Here we must ascertain whether the legislature intended to supplant[] or preempt[] the authority of probation agents to impose rules of probation on probationers. See Holtzman v. Knott, 193 Wis. 2d 649, 667, 533 N.W.2d 419 (1995). ¶ 49. This question requires a broader inquiry than the text of the statutes. Kaminski argues the policy of the statutes based upon extrinsic sources. The State wages a similar campaign. Our goal is to discern what the legislature intended. We therefore will examine the history, object, and context of Wisconsin's sex offender registration law.
¶ 50. Wisconsin Stat. § 175.45 (1993-94) was the first Wisconsin statute to require persons convicted of certain sex crimes to register with the State. Bollig, 232 Wis. 2d 561, ¶ 21. Section 175.45 required a convicted sex offender to provide information about his or her home address, place of school enrollment, place of employment and employment duties to the Department of Justice (DOJ). Wis. Stat. § 175.45(2) (1993-94). The DOJ was required to maintain the information. Wis. Stat. § 175.45(7)(a) (1993-94). ¶ 51. At that time, neither Wis. Stat. § 175.45 (1993-94) nor any other statute provided for any access to a sex offender's information, or any notification of that information. Instead, § 175.45 required the DOJ to keep the information confidential except as needed for law enforcement purposes. Wis. Stat. § 175.45(7)(a) (1993-94). Section 175.45(6)(b) stated that: [w]hoever knowingly fails to keep information confidential as required under sub. (7) may be fined not more than $500 or imprisoned for not more than 30 days or both. Wis. Stat. § 175.45(6)(b) (1993-94). ¶ 52. In 1996, the legislature revised and renumbered the sex offender registration system by enacting 1995 Wis. Act 440, creating Wis. Stat. §§ 301.45 and 301.46. Bollig, 232 Wis. 2d 561, ¶ 21. The new sex offender registration law transferred the sex offender registry to the DOC, required the DOC to maintain the sex offender registry information, and provided for extensive access to that information. ¶ 53. As we noted in Bollig, the legislative intent behind the creation of Wis. Stat. §§ 301.45 and 301.46 can be gleaned from a proposal found in the Legislative Reference Bureau's drafting file for 1995 Wis. Act 440. 232 Wis. 2d 561, ¶ 22. The proposal, prepared by the Wisconsin Department Of Corrections Sex Offender Community Notification workgroup (DOC workgroup), is entitled Sex Offender Community Notification Proposed Program Components, Executive Summary and Final Report (1994) [hereinafter Final Report]. [14] The DOC workgroup was formed in response to efforts by legislators to introduce community notification legislation based on a revision and expansion of the then existing registration statute. Bollig, 232 Wis. 2d 561, § 22. [15] The DOC workgroup's Final Report made recommendations and laid out a framework for the new sex offender registration and notification law. Final Report, supra. It recommended expanding the then current sex offender registration law to comply with Title XVII of the 1994 Federal Crime Bill. [16] Id. at ii. ¶ 54. The DOC workgroup's goals were to: [A]nalyze current DOC, local law enforcement, and other state laws/practices related to community notification of sex offenders, and; [F]ormulate recommendations and/or options to be communicated to the Legislature related to the most effective model for community notification. This model will need to balance community protection with the offender's community re-integration needs. Id. at 1. ¶ 55. A section of the DOC workgroup's Final Report summarized the then current notification practices under Wis. Stat. § 175.45 (1993-94). It stated in part that for cases supervised under a high risk caseload, probation and parole may provide extended notification within the neighborhood, schools, employers, etc. . . .as deemed appropriate and necessary. Id. at 3 (emphasis added). ¶ 56. Kaminski contends that the legislature intended to discontinue this practice, as evidenced by language in Wis. Stat. § 301.45(7) stating that: The department shall keep the information confidential except as provided in. . .[§ ] 301.46, [and] except as needed for law enforcement purposes, found in Wis. Stat. § 301.45(7)(a). ¶ 57. We disagree. The 1996 legislation lifted many provisions from the 1993 law. Wisconsin Stat. § 175.45(7)(a) (1993-94) read: The department of justice shall maintain information provided under sub. (2). The department shall keep the information confidential except as needed for law enforcement purposes. ¶ 58. Most of this language was carried over to Wis. Stat. § 301.45(7)(a) where it is applied in a different context to a different department. The department [of corrections] shall maintain information provided under sub. (2). The department shall keep the information confidential except as provided. . . . The subsection then uses the word except three times, listing numerous statutes. The subsection includes the phrase except as needed for law enforcement purposes. ¶ 59. In the 1993 law, the DOC and the Department of Health and Social Services were required to share information with the DOJ. [17] Wis. Stat. § 175.45(9) (1993-94). Nothing in the 1993 law prevented the two departments from using their own information in the normal course of business under other statutes. ¶ 60. When the law transferred the sex offender registry to the DOC, it did not prevent the DOC from using its own information to carry out its mission in probation and parole. ¶ 61. The most significant change in the 1996 legislation was that a sex offender registration law became a modified sex offender notification law, expanding access to information. There is no evidence to suggest that the legislature intended to curtail the DOC's ordinary operating procedures. ¶ 62. During 1993 and 1994, probation and parole officers could notify certain people in a high risk sex offender's neighborhood, as well as schools and employers, about the sex offender. Final Report, supra, at 3. In this work, the agents were utilizing their own information. ¶ 63. One precept of the DOC workgroup was to build upon these current systems or practices. Id. The DOC workgroup's recommended model was to improve or expand on current practices, and to provide flexibility to the agency of jurisdiction and law enforcement in order to expand or reduce community notification based on case-by-case factorsleaving discretion to individualize notification strategies. Id. at 2. ¶ 64. Nothing in the Final Report or elsewhere in the legislative history of 1995 Wis. Act 440 indicates that by enacting the 1996 revision, the legislature intended to limit the ability of probation agents to disclose sex offender information if necessary to supervise clients who were sex offenders. Instead, the legislature pointedly gave the DOC authority to maintain the sex offender information, broad discretion to disclose the information, and broad discretion to write its own rules. ¶ 65. We cannot conclude that in granting the DOC broad authority to notify the general public under certain circumstances, and in expanding notification procedures generally, the legislature intended to usurp probation agents' authority to impose probation rules requiring notification of people in close proximity to a specific sex offender. Such action would run contrary to the goal of protection of the public from sex offenders, which the DOC workgroup deemed a paramount governmental interest. Id. at i. ¶ 66. Kaminski also points out that Wis. Stat. § 301.46 originally did not specifically provide for any notification of the general public absent a request for information. He notes that the legislature amended § 301.46 in 1997 to authorize the police and sheriff to provide information to the general public even without a request for the information. 1997 Wis. Act 6. Kaminski asserts that when the legislature did not extend this authority to the DOC, the legislature expressed an intention that the DOC not have authority to notify the general public of a registered person's status as a sex offender. ¶ 67. We agree that Wis. Stat. § 301.46 did not originally authorize the DOC to notify the public at large. It does not follow, however, that the legislature intended in enacting 1995 Wis. Act 440 to prohibit a particular probation agent from imposing rules of probation requiring a probationer to inform specified persons of the probationer's status as a sex offender. ¶ 68. It is clear that prior to the enactment of Wis. Stat. §§ 301.45 and 301.46, neither law enforcement nor the Departments of Corrections or Justice was authorized under Wis. Stat. § 175.45 to notify any member of the general public of a registered sex offender's personal information. Yet, prior to 1996 probation agents could notify certain persons of a client's sex offender status. Final Report, supra, at 3. In enacting Wis. Stat. §§ 301.45 and 301.46, the legislature intended to build upon current systems or practices, id. at 3, and to improve or expand on current practices. Id. at 2. The DOC workgroup recommended that relevant offender information should be made available for the purpose of. . .screening of current or prospective employees or volunteers. . .and to offer the general public greater access to this information for their protection. Id. at i. ¶ 69. We find it unlikely that in enacting 1995 Wis. Act 440, the legislature intended to prohibit the only method the DOC or law enforcement had of notifying anyoneincluding the convicted sex offender's employer, landlord, immediate neighbors, or a person with whom the sex offender might begin an intimate relationshipof the convicted sex offender's status, if these persons did not request the information. [18] ¶ 70. 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. § 301.46, without going through separate law enforcement agencies to convey information about offenders. ¶ 71. 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. This amendment has resulted in wide-scale notification, such as on publicly accessible Internet sites. ¶ 72. We conclude that the legislature did not intend that Wis. Stat. §§ 301.45 and 301.46 occupy the field of sex offender registry notification and access, and did not intend to prohibit the DOC and probation agents from imposing rules of probation. ¶ 73. Our conclusion is supported not only by the object, legislative history, and context of the statutes, but also by current practice. On its sex offender registration Internet site, the DOC states that: Public Safety is the primary objective of sex offender supervision and the [o]ffender is not allowed to remain anonymous. Wisconsin Department of Corrections, Sex Offender Registry Program, Sex Offender Supervision and Rules (2001), at http://publicsor.doc.state.wi.us/static/rules.html (last visited July 3, 2001). ¶ 74. The DOC declares on its Internet site that [s]upervising sex offenders is a multifaceted activity, requiring agents to adopt various roles and to work closely with a variety of other professionals as well as family members, employers and others who routinely interact with the offender. Id. It further stresses the need for the [u]se of personal/community and professional supervision networks to help monitor, modify, and control offender's behavior. Id. ¶ 75. Probation/parole field units bear the onus of locating housing in the community for sex offenders, a time-consuming and frequently frustrating task. Supervision; home visits; collateral contacts with landlords, employers, and so forth. . . . Richard G. Zevitz & Mary Ann Farkas, Sex Offender Community Notification: Assessing the Impact in Wisconsin 10 (2000) (study conducted by the National Institute of Justice) (on file at the Wisconsin State Law Library) (emphasis added). ¶ 76. To ensure that a registered sex offender obtains employment and housing, a probation agent might need to interact with the sex offender's prospective employer or landlord and advise that person of the sex offender's status. It is difficult to imagine that a probation/parole officer, required by the dictates of supervising a registered sex offender to make contact with the person's landlord and employer, would be prohibited by the legislature from divulging that the person is a sex offender or requiring the offender to inform his or her landlord or employer of his or her status. ¶ 77. The same reasoning holds true for the person's neighbors or for a person with whom the registered person might become intimate. We do not read Wis. Stat. §§ 301.45 and 301.46 as reducing a probation agent's supervisory role for convicted sex offenders. ¶ 78. Clearly a circuit court, the DOC, or a probation agent could impose conditions or rules of probation requiring a probationer who is not a registered sex offender to inform his or her employer, landlord, neighbors, or a person with whom the probationer might become intimate, of his or her status. See Wis. Stat. §§ 973.09 and 973.10; Wis. Admin. Code § DOC 328.04(3). We do not discern a legislative intent to grant registered sex offenders more privacy and greater rights than other probationers. As the DOC workgroup stated: Persons found to have committed a sexual offense have a reduced expectation of privacy because of the public's interest in public safety. Final Report, supra, at i (emphasis added). [10] ¶ 79. In summary, we find nothing in the language, the legislative history, the object, or the context of Wis. Stat. §§ 301.45 and 301.46 to indicate that the legislature intended in enacting 1995 Wis. Act 440 to prohibit probation agents from imposing rules requiring registered sex offenders to inform specified persons of their status. We conclude that Wis. Stat. §§ 301.45 and 301.46 were not intended to occupy the field of sex offender registration information notification, and do not preclude a probation agent from imposing a rule requiring a probationer to inform others of the probationer's status as a sex offender.