Current law prohibits a person from intentionally conveying or causing to be
conveyed any false information, knowing such information to be false, concerning an

---

attempt to destroy property by means of an explosive. This crime of making a bomb
scare is a Class E felony.

Under this bill, no person may threaten to cause the death of or bodily injury
to any person or to damage any person's property by any means under any of the
following circumstances: 1) the actor intends to prevent the occupation of or cause
the evacuation of a building, dwelling, school premises, vehicle (which is defined to
include any bus, train, boat, or airplane), facility of public transportation, or place
of public assembly or any room within a building, dwelling, or school premises; 2) the
actor intends to cause serious public inconvenience; 3) the actor intends to cause an
interruption or impairment of governmental operations or public communication, of
transportation, or of a supply of water, gas, or other public service; or 4) the actor
creates an unreasonable and substantial risk of causing one of the occurrences
described in items 1 to 3 of this paragraph and is aware of that risk. A person who
violates this prohibition is guilty of a Class E felony, unless the person thereby
contributes to the death of any person. In that case, the person is guilty of a Class
C felony.

The bill expands the bomb scare crime to prohibit making or conveying a threat,
knowing it to be false, to use or attempt to use an explosive, a destructive device, or
a weapon of mass destruction. The threat crime is a Class E felony. However, if a
person makes or conveys a threat to use or attempt to use an explosive, a destructive
device, or a weapon of mass destruction under any of the four circumstances listed
in the previous paragraph, the person is guilty of a Class C felony.

Under current law, no person may intentionally cause bodily harm to another
person without the other person's consent. A person who violates this prohibition is
guilty of a Class A misdemeanor. More severe penalties apply if the victim suffers
substantial bodily harm or great bodily harm. For example, if a person causes
substantial bodily harm to another with intent to cause substantial bodily harm, the
person is guilty of a Class D felony. Current law also provides more severe penalties
for battery committed under certain circumstances against any of the following: 1)
an elected or appointed state or local public officer; 2) an officer or employee of a
technical college district or school district; 3) an officer or employee of a prison or
detention facility; 4) a probation, extended supervision, or parole agent or a person
authorized to supervise a juvenile on aftercare; 5) a law enforcement officer or fire
fighter; 6) a person working in a hospital emergency room, an emergency medical
technician, a first responder (a person employed or assigned to provide emergency
medical care to another before the arrival of an ambulance), or an ambulance driver;
or 7) an operator of a vehicle providing transportation service to the general public
(a public transit vehicle). In all of these "special circumstances" battery cases, other
than those in which the victim is a public officer, the prosecutor must prove that the
actor knew that the victim was one of the individuals described above or that the
victim was acting in his or her official capacity at the time of the battery or both. In
cases involving a public officer, the prosecutor must show that the battery was
committed in order to influence the action of the public officer or as a result of any

---

action taken within an official capacity. A person who commits special circumstances
battery is guilty of a Class D felony, unless the victim was a public officer, an officer
or employee of a technical college district or school district, or the operator of a public
transit vehicle, in which case the offense is a Class E felony.

Finally, a person committing battery is guilty of a Class E felony if the bodily
harm is inflicted: 1) while the victim was a passenger of a public transit vehicle; 2)
after the offender forces or directs the victim to leave a public transit vehicle; or 3)
as the offender prevents, or attempts to prevent, the victim from gaining lawful
access to a public transit vehicle.

Through separate statutory provisions, current law also prohibits intentionally
causing bodily harm or threatening to cause bodily harm to a judge or an official,
employee, or agent of the department of revenue, commerce, or workforce
development (a covered government employee) or a family member of a a covered
government employee. This prohibition applies if: 1) the actor knows or should have
known that the victim is a covered government employee or a member of his or her
family; 2) the covered government employee is acting in an official capacity at the
time of the act or threat or the act or threat is in response to any action taken in an
official capacity; and 3) there is no consent by the person harmed or threatened. A
person violating one of these prohibitions is guilty of a Class D felony.

This bill repeals the special circumstances battery provisions that apply
exclusively to state or local government employees and the battery/threats
prohibitions applicable to covered government employees and creates a new offense
applicable to all state or local public officers or employees. Under this bill, no person
may intentionally cause bodily harm or threaten to cause bodily harm to any state
or local public officer or employee if all of the following apply: 1) the actor knows or
should have known that the victim is a state or local public officer or employee or a
member of his or her family; 2) the state or local public officer or employee is acting
in an official capacity at the time of the act or threat, the act or threat, is intended
to influence an action by the public officer or employee in an official capacity, or the
act or threat is in response to any action taken in an official capacity; and 3) there
is no consent by the person harmed or threatened. A person violating this prohibition
is guilty of a Class D felony. The bill also makes battery against an operator,
passenger, or potential passenger of a public transit vehicle into a Class D felony.

Current law prohibits communicating with a person summoned or serving as
a juror with the intent to influence the person with respect to his or her involvement
in a legal proceeding, unless the communication occurs in the regular course of the
legal proceeding. A person who violates this prohibition is guilty of a Class E felony.
This bill makes that prohibition applicable to communications made with the same
intent to family members of the person summoned or serving as a juror. It also
specifies that the prohibition applies to both direct and indirect communication. In
addition, under the bill, no person may communicate directly or indirectly with a
juror, a former juror, or a family member of a juror or former juror with the intent
to annoy, harass, frighten, threaten, abuse, or intimidate the juror, the former juror,
or the family member because of a verdict returned by the juror or because of the

---

juror's participation in any criminal or civil trial or matter. A person who violates
this prohibition is guilty of a Class E felony.

This bill establishes a higher penalty for either of these juror-related offenses
if any of the following applies: 1) the act is accompanied by force or violence, or
attempted force or violence, upon the juror, the prospective juror, or the former juror
or one of his or her family members; 2) the act is accompanied by damage to the
property of the juror, the prospective juror, or the former juror or one of his or her
family members; 3) the act is accompanied by an express or implied threat of force,
violence, or property damage; 4) the act is in furtherance of any conspiracy; 5) the
person has a prior conviction for juror, witness, or victim intimidation under any
federal or state law; or 6) the act is committed at another person's request and for
monetary gain or some other benefit. (These circumstances are the same as those
that differentiate the Class A misdemeanor version of witness or victim intimidation
from the Class E felony version of witness or victim intimidation.) A person who
violates either of the prohibitions described in the preceding paragraph under any
of these circumstances is guilty of a Class D felony.

Finally, this bill makes certain other statutes that relate to witness or victim
intimidation applicable to these juror-related offenses. Thus, a person who attempts
to commit any of the juror-related offenses described in this section of the analysis
is guilty of the offense he or she attempts. By contrast, a person attempting to
commit a typical Class D or Class E felony is subject to one-half the maximum
penalty for the completed offense. In addition, if a court having jurisdiction over a
criminal matter is provided evidence that any of these juror-related offenses has
occurred or is reasonably likely to occur, the court may issue certain orders to prevent
the offense from occurring or recurring. Finally, this bill permits a court to revoke
the release of a defendant who commits or causes or encourages another person to
commit any of these juror-related offenses.

Under current law, no person may make a telephone call and threaten to cause
bodily harm to another person or to damage any person's property if the call and the
threat are made with intent to frighten, intimidate, threaten, abuse, or harass the
other person. In addition, no person, with intent to frighten, intimidate, threaten,
abuse, or harass another person (the victim), may: 1) send the victim electronic mail
(e-mail) or any other computerized message threatening to cause bodily harm to any
person or to damage any person's property; or 2) send any e-mail or any other
computerized message, with the reasonable expectation that the victim will receive
it, threatening to cause bodily harm to any person or to damage any person's
property. A person who violates one of these prohibitions is guilty of a Class B
misdemeanor. (A person convicted of a Class B misdemeanor may be fined not more
than $1,000 or imprisoned for not more than 90 days or both.)

Under this bill, no person may threaten to cause the death of or bodily harm to
another person or to damage another person's property with intent to frighten,
intimidate, threaten, abuse, or harass any person. A person who violates this
prohibition is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.

Under current law, a person is a party to a crime and may be convicted of
committing the crime if the person directly commits the crime, intentionally aids and
abets the commission of the crime, is a party to a conspiracy to commit the crime, or
hires, counsels, or otherwise procures another to commit the crime. A person may
be convicted of solicitation, if the person with intent that a felony be committed,
advises another to commit that felony. The penalty for solicitation is generally less
than the penalty for commission of the crime. A person may also be convicted of
conspiracy if the person, with intent that a crime be committed, agrees or combines
with another to commit the crime, as long as one of the parties to the conspiracy
commits an act to effect the object of the conspiracy. The penalty for conspiracy is
generally the same as the penalty for the completed crime, except that a person may
not be imprisoned for life upon conviction of conspiracy.

The bill prohibits a person from soliciting or collecting material support if he
or she knows or has reason to know that the material support is intended to be used
to plan, prepare, commit, or escape after committing an act of terrorism. The bill also
prohibits a person from providing material support to another if he or she knows or
has reason to know that the material support is intended to be used to plan, prepare,
commit, or escape after committing an act of terrorism. An act of terrorism is a crime
to which the terrorism penalty enhancer (see above, Terrorism penalty enhancer)
applies, or an act committed outside this state that would be a crime to which the
terrorism penalty enhancer would apply if committed in this state. The crimes
relating to soliciting or collecting material support for acts of terrorism are Class C
felonies.

Current law requires a charitable organization to be registered with the
department of regulation and licensing (DRL) in order to be able to solicit
contributions in this state. Current law also requires professional fund-raisers
(persons paid to solicit charitable contributions) and fund-raising counsel (persons
paid to plan, manage, or give advice concerning the solicitation of charitable
contributions) to be registered with DRL. DRL may deny, limit, suspend, or revoke
the registration of a charitable organization, professional fund-raiser, or
fund-raising counsel that does any of the following: 1) makes a false statement in
a registration statement, annual report, or other information required to be filed
with DRL; or 2) violates a statute or rule that regulates the solicitation of charitable
contributions. This bill provides that DRL may deny, limit, suspend, or revoke the
registration of a charitable organization, professional fund-raiser, or fund-raising
counsel that violates the prohibitions created in the bill against soliciting or
collecting material support that is intended to be used to plan, prepare, commit, or
escape after committing acts of terrorism.

Current law provides various penalties for theft and related property crimes.
This bill prohibits various types of money laundering and provides penalties for
violations. Examples of the money laundering that the bill prohibits include: 1)
acquiring proceeds that a person knows or has reason to know are derived from a
felony, if the person knows or has reason to know the acquisition is designed to

---

conceal the nature, location, source, ownership or control of the proceeds; 2)
transferring or possessing currency or other monetary instruments that a person
knows or has reason to know are intended to be used to commit a felony; and 3)
planning the transfer of proceeds that a person knows or has reason to know are
derived from a felony, if the person knows or has reason to know that the transfer is
designed to conceal the nature, location, source, ownership or control of the proceeds.
The bill makes money laundering a Class D felony, except that a person convicted of
money laundering may be fined not more than $10,000 or twice the value of the
proceeds or monetary instruments involved in the crime, whichever is greater.

Current law prohibits various fraudulent acts related to financial transaction
cards, including making false statements for the purpose of obtaining a financial
transaction card and forging a financial transaction card. Current law also prohibits
the use of another's personal identifying information or a personal identification
document belonging to another without that person's consent to obtain credit, money,
goods, services, or anything else of value. These offenses are penalized as Class A
misdemeanors or Class E, D, or C felonies, depending on the circumstances.

The bill prohibits making various false statements in connection with a
transaction with a financial institution. The prohibited activities include: 1)
falsifying or concealing the identity of a person; 2) making a false statement or
representation regarding a person; 3) making or using a writing that contains false
information regarding the identity of a person; or 4) using or presenting a false
personal identification document or false personal identifying information. The
crimes related to false statements to financial institutions are Class E felonies.

Under current law theft of property that does not exceed $2,500 in value is a
Class A misdemeanor. Theft of property that exceeds $2,500 in value, or theft of a
firearm is a Class D felony. The bill makes theft of a firearm that is owned by a law
enforcement agency, the U.S. armed forces, a reserve component of the U.S. armed
forces, or the National Guard, or theft of a machine gun, an explosive, or a destructive
device, regardless of who owns the machine gun, explosive, or destructive device, a
Class C felony.

Under current law it is a Class E felony to sell, possess, use, or transport a
machine gun or other fully automatic weapon. The bill makes this crime a Class D
felony and specifically prohibits transferring a machine gun or fully automatic
weapon, even if the transfer does not constitute a sale. The bill also clarifies the
exceptions under which the prohibitions regarding machine guns do not apply.

Under current law the following acts are crimes; interfering with fire fighting
(which, in the variant having the most severe penalty, is Class E felony); obstructing
a law enforcement officer (which is either a Class A misdemeanor or a Class D felony);
or obstructing emergency or rescue personnel (which is a Class E misdemeanor if it
endangers another's safety or a Class C felony if it contributes to another's death).
The bill makes it a Class E felony to interfere with or obstruct a public safety official

---

while that official is searching for, disarming, or destroying an explosive or a
destructive device.

Current law generally prohibits the interception of many types of
communications, including telephone calls, e-mail, and face-to-face conversations.
Current law, however, authorizes law enforcement officers and prosecutors to engage
in electronic surveillance, and intercept communications, under certain
circumstances if the interception may provide or has provided evidence of the
commission of the offense of homicide, felony murder, kidnapping, commercial
gambling, bribery, extortion, dealing in controlled substances, the commission of
certain computer crimes, or the conspiracy to commit any of those offenses. In order
for a law enforcement officer or a prosecutor to engage in electronic surveillance, the
attorney general and the district attorney must jointly apply in writing and under
oath to the chief judge for the judicial administrative district in which the electronic
surveillance is to occur for an order authorizing the electronic surveillance. The
court may grant the order if it determines, based on the information presented, that:
1) there is probable cause to believe that an individual is committing, has committed,
or is about to commit one of the offenses listed above; 2) there is probable cause to
believe that particular communications concerning that offense will be obtained
through the electronic surveillance; 3) other investigative procedures have been
tried and have failed, are unlikely to succeed if tried, or are too dangerous to try; and
4) there is probable cause to believe that the facilities from which or the place where
the interception is to occur are or will be used in the commission of the offense or are
leased to, listed in the name of, or commonly used by the person committing or about
to commit the offense. The court's order may authorize electronic surveillance for no
longer than 30 days, although it may be extended for up to an additional 30 days.
The order must specify, among other things, the nature and location of the
communications facilities being used or the place being used for the communications
that will be intercepted.

This bill makes several changes to these provisions. First, under the bill, a
court may authorize electronic surveillance if it may provide or has provided
evidence of the commission any felony that is dangerous to life, limb, or property, not
just one of the crimes listed in the first paragraph of this section of the analysis.

Second, the bill permits a law enforcement officer or a prosecutor to obtain an
order permitting electronic surveillance in an emergency situation (a situation
involving immediate danger of death or great bodily harm) based on an application
made under oath by telephone, radio, or other means of electronic communication.
The application must be approved in advance by either the attorney general or the
district attorney (as opposed to by both of them). In order to grant the order, the
court, in addition to making the determinations listed in the first paragraph of this
section of the analysis, must determine, based on information presented by the
applicant, that requiring a written application may increase or prolong the risk of
death or great bodily harm that the emergency situation involves.

---

An order authorizing an emergency wiretap expires, at the latest, 48 hours
after its issuance. Before that time period expires, the applicant must apply to the
chief judge in writing -- in the same manner as if he or she were applying in a
nonemergency situation -- for approval of the electronic surveillance. The court
must grant or deny the application (applying the law governing nonemergency
situations) within 48 hours after entering the emergency wiretap order. If the court
grants the application, the electronic surveillance may continue under the same
terms as any nonemergency order. If the court denies the application or if the
applicant for the emergency wiretap order never files a subsequent written
application, the emergency wiretap order expires immediately, and evidence from
any communication intercepted under the emergency wiretap order may be excluded
from evidence in court.

Third, the bill authorizes law enforcement officers and prosecutors to obtain
"roving interception orders." A roving interception order permits the interception of
communications of a given individual without specifying the nature and location of
the communications facilities being used or the place being used for the
communications that will be intercepted. To obtain such an order, a law enforcement
officer or prosecutor must demonstrate to the court, in the context of his or her
application for authorization to engage in electronic surveillance, either: 1) that it
is not practical to identify the facilities being used or the place being used for the
communications that will be intercepted; or 2) that there is probable cause to believe
that the person committing or about to commit the relevant offense could thwart
interception from a specified facility or place. An order that is based on the second
option is valid only while the person in is or was reasonably close to the instrument
through which the communications will be or was transmitted.

Fourth, the bill authorizes a person to provide information, facilities, or
technical assistance to another person who is legally engaged in electronic
surveillance if one of the following applies: 1) the judge authorizing the interception
has ordered the person to provide the specified assistance and the person has been
provided with a copy of the court's order; or 2) the attorney general, the district
attorney, or a person authorized to intercept communications under an emergency
wiretap order provides the person a written certification that states that no warrant
or court order is required by law, that all statutory requirements have been met, and
that the specified assistance is required. The order or certification must specify the
information, facilities, or technical assistance required and must set forth the period
of time during which the provision of the specified assistance is authorized. The bill
also generally prohibits the person from disclosing information regarding the
electronic surveillance.

Under current law, a grand jury proceeding is a formal criminal investigative
proceeding in which jurors may hear evidence of possible crimes, call and examine
witnesses, and, if appropriate, issue subpoenas. By returning indictments, the
grand jury may charge persons with specific crimes. A John Doe proceeding is a
procedure available to determine if a crime has probably been committed and, if so,
who probably committed that crime. A judge conducts the John Doe proceeding, at

---

which he or she examines the complainant and other witnesses. The judge also
determines the scope of the proceeding, and he or she may conduct the proceeding
secretly. If the judge determines that there is probable cause to believe that a crime
was committed and that a specific person committed that crime, a criminal complaint
may be prepared. If there is a criminal complaint, an arrest warrant must be issued.
Grand jury and John Doe proceedings both relate to offenses committed within a
single county.

The bill provides a procedure for conducting a grand jury proceeding with
statewide jurisdiction. Under the bill, the attorney general may petition a chief
judge to convene a grand jury having statewide jurisdiction if: 1) there is reason to
believe that there is criminal activity that is statewide in nature, importance or
influence or that relates to dangerous drugs, gambling or other specified offenses;
and 2) there is reason to investigate the suspected criminal activity in a county
within the chief judge's judicial administrative district. The chief judge may preside
over any such grand jury or assign it to another judge in the district. Similarly, the
bill allows the attorney general to petition for a John Doe proceeding that has
statewide investigative jurisdiction. The attorney general may petition the chief
judge of a judicial administrative district in which there is reason to believe that
there is criminal activity that is statewide in nature, importance or influence or that
relates to dangerous drugs, gambling or other specified offenses. If the chief judge
orders this type of John Doe proceeding, he or she may conduct it or assign another
judge to do so. The attorney general represents the state at any such proceeding.

Under current law, the attorney general or a district attorney may obtain a
court order requiring the disclosure of documents that constitute evidence of a crime
if the attorney general or district attorney shows that there is probable cause that
a crime has been committed. This bill allows the attorney general or a district
attorney to obtain a court order for the disclosure of certain information upon a
showing that the information is relevant to a criminal investigation. The
information covered by this provision includes information as to whether a specific
person has, or at a specific time in the past had, a depository account with a financial
institution. The provision also covers the following information held by an electronic
communications service provider pertaining to a subscriber: the person's name and
address, telephone connection records, start date and length of service, types of
services provided, telephone numbers, network address or other subscriber identity
information, and means of payment for services.

Under current law, the department of transportation (DOT) generally may not
release photographs taken for a driver's license or an identification card, except to
the person photographed. Thus, DOT may not release a photograph to a law
enforcement agency solely for use as part of a photograph lineup or photograph array.
However, DOT may release a photograph to a law enforcement agency for the
purpose of investigating unlawful activity, investigating a missing person case, or
identifying an accident victim or a deceased person. The bill eliminates the

---

restriction on releasing photographs solely for use as part of a photograph lineup or
a photograph array.

Current law provides that a person may petition a circuit court to enter an order
changing the person's name. A person may also change his or her name by marriage
or divorce or pursuant to an adoption. The Wisconsin Supreme Court has also ruled
that a person may change his or her name under common law by consistent and
continuous use of a new name, as long as the name change is not effected for a
fraudulent purpose. State v. Hansford, 219 Wis. 2d 226 (1998). The bill specifies that
petitioning a circuit court for a name change or changing one's name in connection
with a marriage, divorce, or adoption are the only legitimate methods for making a
name change.