Court Opinion

ID: 9584675
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:51:36.482476+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:13:17.336077
License: Public Domain

SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, CHIEF JUSTICE
¶ 87. (dissenting). I confess that I came close to joining the majority opinion in this case. Its explanation of the report and recommendations of the Department of Corrections (DOC) workgroup is very persuasive. Were the DOC workgroup's report and recommendations law, I would have no problem allowing Kaminski's probation agent to require Kaminski to disclose his sex offender status to his immediate neighbors.
¶ 88. But, of course, our focus is not on what the DOC workgroup recommended to the legislature. Rather, we are asked whether the relevant statutes, Wis. Stat. §§ 301.45 and 301.46 (1997-98), enacted by the legislature, allow a probation agent to require a sex offender to disclose information kept confidential by the statute. If the legislature wanted to incorporate the entirety of the DOC's report and recommendations into the statute governing sex offender registry, it could have done so. Had the legislature done so, this case would not have reached this court.
*344¶ 89. Instead, the 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. See Wis. Stat. § 301.45(6)(b) (1997-98). 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.
¶ 90. The court of appeals concluded that because the statute plainly prohibits Kaminski's probation agent from disclosing the confidential information to Kaminski's immediate neighbors, the probation officer cannot require Kaminski to do what the probation agent may not do under the statute. See State ex rel. Kaminski v. Schwarz, 2000 WI App 159, 238 Wis. 2d 16, 616 N.W.2d 148.1 agree with the court of appeals.
¶ 91. For the reasons set forth by the court of appeals, I dissent.
¶ 92. I am authorized to state that Justices WILLIAM A. BABLITCH and ANN WALSH BRADLEY join this opinion.