Sen. Rob Hutton (R-Brookfield) testifies March 4 in favor of requiring a revocation recommendation when a formerly incarcerated person who is released on community supervision is charged with a new crime. Sitting with him is the bill’s Assembly author, state Rep. Brent Jacobson (R-Mosinee). (Screenshot/WisEye)
An Assembly committee will vote Monday on a bill that could result in more people on correctional supervision — parole, probation, or extended supervision — facing revocation, resulting in a portion of their remaining sentence being served in incarceration. It is one of five bills to receive a committee vote.
Revocation occurs when those on correctional supervision, as part of their sentencing, violate a condition of their release, such as consuming drugs or alcohol or re-offending. In a hearing, an administrative judge determines if they have sufficiently violated their conditions to return to prison and serve some or all of their remaining sentence.
Presently, parole or probation officers can decide whether to recommend a revocation hearing, which can result in a temporary jail hold while an administrative judge considers the request.
The proposed legislation, AB 85, would mandate that those same probation and parole officers must recommend a revocation if the person on supervision is charged with a new offense.
Two Republican authors of the bill and law enforcement representatives spoke in favor of the bill at the March 4 Assembly Committee on the Judiciary public hearing. Proponents said the legislation is needed to ensure at least a revocation hearing is held after a new offense is charged. They said leaving it up to the parole or probation officers’ discretion doesn’t automatically result in a revocation hearing.
Supporters of the bill also said it is necessary to hold repeat offenders accountable and ensure public safety.
Opposition to the bill comes from those advocating for prison and judicial reform, who argue that the present system already results in too many people being revoked for technical reasons. They argued that current protocols are sufficient to protect the public. Instead of focusing on revocation, they said the state should support services that help those on supervision be more successful in reentering society.
Hearing witnesses said that , in most cases, when a probation or parole officer recommends revocation, the administrative judge supports it.
In its 2025-2027 budget request, the Department of Corrections (DOC) set reducing revocations as one of its goals over the next three years. As part of the public hearing, the DOC submitted written testimony opposing the proposed legislation.
For AB 85
The committee’s vice chair and the bill’s Assembly author, state Rep. Brent Jacobson (R-Mosinee), said the legislation is needed to ensure an administrative hearing is held to consider a revocation.
“It may come as a surprise, but a convicted criminal on community supervision is not immediately revoked if they’re charged with another crime,” said Jacobson. “Under current statute, whether such individuals are reincarcerated or allowed to remain on our streets, is decided by an administrative law judge. However, in order for a judge to hear a revocation case, revocation must first be recommended by an agent of the Department of Corrections. According to the DOC’s own estimates, in 2019 there were 6,280 individuals on community supervision who were charged with a new crime but not revoked.”
Jacobson and others who spoke in favor of the bill all said they were for giving “second chances” to those who had violated the law, but they also noted a responsibility to protect the public from repeat offenders.
The bill’s Senate coauthor, Sen. Rob Hutton (R-Brookfield), said AB 85 is part of a package of bills that are “addressing the revolving door of crime and the cycle of lawlessness” that, he said, is allowed by the “lenient part of our judicial system.”
“Far too often, law-abiding citizens become victims of crimes committed by repeat offenders” who have been released on parole, probation or extended supervision, he said.
“When a prisoner is granted release before the completion of their sentence, it becomes an expectation of good behavior, and that release is only as good as that person behaves,” Hutton said. “An individual who has been charged with a new crime while on release has violated their promise of good behavior and should have their release revoked. However, under current law, that is, frankly not the case.”
Joel Moeller, vice president of the Milwaukee Police Association, talked about working in a probation parole unit with a representative of the DOC looking for parole violators who had committed crimes after their incarceration.
“We were looking for serious guys that were in prison for serious things, and they committed serious crimes again,” Moeller said. “A lot of times we would find them, arrested them. They’d sit in jail for four or five days, and then they would just be out with the hearing date where they were just committing more crimes.”
Moeller said it was critical to ensure those who were charged with another offense had an appearance before an administrative judge to determine whether probation should be revoked.
“Some of these people are model citizens when they come out [of incarceration], but a lot of them aren’t,” Moeller said. “They go back into the same lifestyle they were living when they went into prison, and sometimes they need to go back to learn a lesson.”
Alexander Ayala, president of the Milwaukee Police Association, said that while he served in the robbery unit, some of the robberies he investigated wouldn’t have happened and citizens wouldn’t have been “victimized” if the suspects had their parole revoked.
Committee Chair Ron Tusler (R-Harrison) noted that the argument could be made that passing the bill would increase costs for the state. But he said consideration should be given to the “cost of recidivism” of parolees violating the law, such as the expense incurred by district attorneys prosecuting new complaints.
Against AB 85
Sean Wilson, the senior director of organizing and partnership at Dream.Org, a non-profit for “closing prisons doors and opening doors of opportunity,” spoke against AB 85.
“Rather than implementing measures that may increase revocations, we urge the legislature to introduce and pass legislation that supports the successful reintegration of individuals in supervision, investing in programs that provide education, job training, mental health, and substance abuse treatment, which can significantly reduce recidivism rates and promote public safety,” Wilson said.
He noted that many on supervision are required to make restitution to victims or must pay child or marriage support, but when supervision is revoked, that delays those payments.
Wilson said In Wisconsin many have already been revoked for a “technical” violation of the condition of their release.
“Between January 2019 and May 2024, there were over 13,000 such admissions [revocations back to prison], accounting for approximately 34% of all prison admissions during that period,” said Wilson. “Implementing AB 85 could exacerbate this existing problem by increasing the number of individuals recommended for revocation based solely on criminal charges, regardless of conviction.”
Revocation before a person is tried for a new offense “undermines the presumption of innocence and will disproportionately affect marginalized communities, further exacerbating existing inequalities in our criminal justice system,” he added. “While we acknowledge the intent to enhance public safety, it is crucial to consider the broader implications of AB 85. Enacting legislation that may increase revocations and contradicts the direction of effective criminal justice reform and does a disservice to the people of Wisconsin.”
Tusler asked Wilson whether a revocation could intervene and stop criminal behavior.
“We send over 3,000 people back to prison each year as a result of technical revocations,” Wilson responded. “Often in those cases, there’s not a new crime; there’s an allegation of a crime, and individuals are sent back to prison as a result of that. I’ve traveled this state from North Wisconsin all the way down south, east and west, and I’ve heard stories of individuals going back to prison just for the sake of moving, just as a result of moving from apartment A to apartment B without getting proper approval from their probation agent”
Wilson claimed the annual fiscal impact of the technical revocations is $200 million.
He contended the DOC typically recommends revocation in most cases and it made no sense to have a mandatory recommendation.
Tessler said the bill didn’t address “technical” issues of revocation. He conjectured that even when there is a technical revocation, there were probably other issues that had exacerbated a parolee’s standing.
Two representatives of Ex-incarcerated People Organizing (EXPO) — Operations Director Marianne Oleson and Executive Director Jerome Dillard — also spoke against the bill.
Oleson advocated for the state to allocate more resources to help those on probation become successful. She discussed the typical struggles people face in obtaining housing and employment and advocated for “true wraparound services that support people in recognizing we are more than the choices we regret.”
AB 85 would “overtax an already over-taxed system,” said Oleson, and she encouraged more support for organizations like Dream and Expo.
Dillard said that after working 20 years in prisons and outside, most probation and parole officers are doing their jobs correctly, and the current process works.
He argued that not every charge should result in a revocation, such as retail theft or a misdemeanor offense. Dillard said he knew of someone who was revoked for a misdemeanor, returning to prison for 24 months, but the judge in the misdemeanor case only sentenced the person to 90 days.
A new charge could also result in a revocation hearing even if the charge is later dismissed.
“I don’t see where this legislation is really needed in the systems that we have today, because community corrections do their job, and sometimes I feel [they are] overzealous because individuals are locked up on hearsay,” said Dillard.
The Wisconsin State Public Defenders office and Wisconsin’s American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) also registered in opposition to the bill.
GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.