Assembly Bill 713
Mutual assistance between tribal and county or municipal law enforcement agencies
Topics: Indians and tribal issues, Justice, Department of, Police
Became law
The governor signed it on May 7, 2010. It's .
-
Introduced, passed
Feb 9, 2010
-
Committee, passed
Approved
-
Assembly vote, passed
Passed Mar 4, 2010
-
Senate vote, passed
Passed Apr 20, 2010
-
Governor, passed
Signed
-
Law, here now
2009 Wisconsin Act 264
Latest entry in the official record, May 10, 2010: “Published 5-21-2010”
Following saves it on this device. New actions show on your Following page. You can also get updates in a feed reader.
Terms on this page
Wisconsin Act
The number a bill gets when it becomes law, like 2025 Wisconsin Act 12.
Official term: Act. More in the glossary
Legislative Reference Bureau
The Legislature's nonpartisan office that drafts bills and writes the summary at the top of each one.
Official term: LRB analysis. More in the glossary
Author
A lawmaker who formally puts a bill forward. The text itself is drafted by the Legislative Reference Bureau.
Official term: Author, coauthor. More in the glossary
Signed on in support
Lawmakers who back a bill without being one of its authors, often from the other chamber.
Official term: Cosponsor. More in the glossary
Cost estimate
A state agency's estimate of what a bill would cost or save.
Official term: Fiscal estimate. More in the glossary
Roll call
A vote where each lawmaker's yes or no is recorded by name.
Official term: Roll call vote. More in the glossary
What it does
Summary by the , the Legislature's nonpartisan drafting office. It's their wording, not ours.
Under current law, one law enforcement agency may respond to a request for assistance from another law enforcement agency. The requesting agency is responsible for defending a responding officer in a civil action arising out of the officer's response and for indemnifying the officer for the amount of any civil penalties imposed or damages awarded in such an action. The responding agency is responsible for personnel costs (such as the salary and benefits of the responding officers) and other costs related to a response (such as damage to equipment), but may bill the requesting agency for these costs. Current law does not apply to tribal law enforcement agencies.
This bill authorizes tribal law enforcement agencies both to request assistance from state, county, and municipal law enforcement agencies and to respond to requests for assistance from such agencies. It assigns responsibility for defending and indemnifying officers in civil actions arising out of a response and responsibility for the costs associated with a response in the same manner as current law.
Read the full summary Show less
To ensure that a tribe's responsibility for the costs of a law enforcement agency that responds to its request for assistance can be enforced, however, the bill limits the authority of a state, county, or municipal law enforcement agency to respond to a request for assistance from a tribal law enforcement agency to cases in which one of the following applies:
1. The tribe has adopted a resolution waiving its sovereign immunity to the extent required to allow enforcement of this responsibility in state courts or a resolution that the Department of Justice (DOJ) determines has the same effect.
2. The tribe maintains insurance to cover these costs up to specified limits.
3. The responding law enforcement agency has an agreement with the tribal law enforcement agency under which the responding law enforcement agency accepts the responsibility for these costs.
The bill requires that, for one of the foregoing actions to have the effect of allowing a nontribal law enforcement agency to respond to a request for assistance from a tribal law enforcement agency, the tribal law enforcement agency must have provided a copy of the resolution, insurance policy, or agreement to DOJ, and DOJ must have posted the document or a notice of the document on the Internet site that it maintains for exchanging information with law enforcement agencies.
Who's behind it
10 lawmakers are its . 6 are Democrats and 3 are Republicans. 1 has no party on record.
10 more lawmakers .
See all 20 names Hide the names
Authors (10)
- Joan Ballweg · Republican, Senate
- Terese Berceau · Democrat, Assembly
- Ann Hraychuck · Democrat, Assembly
- Mary Hubler · Democrat, Assembly
- Louis Molepske Jr. · Democrat, Assembly
- Jeff Mursau · Republican, Assembly
- Sandy Pasch · Democrat, Assembly
- Sherman
- Robert Turner · Democrat, Assembly
- Robin Vos · Republican, Assembly
Signed on in support (10)
- Spencer Coggs · Democrat, Senate
- Glenn Grothman · Republican, Senate
- Sheila Harsdorf · Republican, Senate
- Jim Holperin · Democrat, Senate
- Robert Jauch · Democrat, Senate
- John Lehman · Democrat, Senate
- Mark Miller · Democrat, Senate
- Dale Schultz · Republican, Senate
- Lena Taylor · Democrat, Senate
- Kathleen Vinehout · Democrat, Senate
What it would cost
State agencies filed a . Each opens as a PDF from the Legislature.
How lawmakers voted
There were 2 votes on this bill.
Assembly Committee on Criminal Justice vote to recommend it
Passed, 11 to 0 · Mar 2, 2010
No member-by-member record exists for this vote. Committee votes and some older sessions record totals only.
Official motion: “Report passage recommended by committee on Criminal Justice, Ayes 11, Noes 0”. Official record · This vote on its own page
Senate Committee on Ethics Reform and Government Operations vote to recommend it
Passed, 5 to 0 · Apr 7, 2010
No member-by-member record exists for this vote. Committee votes and some older sessions record totals only.
Official motion: “Report concurrence recommended by committee on Ethics Reform and Government Operations, Ayes 5, Noes 0”. Official record · This vote on its own page
What happened
-
May 10, 2010
The new law was published.
-
May 7, 2010
The governor signed it. It became 2009 Wisconsin Act 264.
-
May 6, 2010
Sent to the governor.
-
Apr 20, 2010
The Senate passed it too.
-
Apr 7, 2010
The committee voted to recommend passing it, 5 to 0.
-
Mar 17, 2010
The committee held a public hearing.
-
Mar 8, 2010
Sent to the Senate Committee on Ethics Reform and Government Operations.
-
Mar 5, 2010
The Senate received it.
-
Mar 4, 2010
The Assembly passed it.
-
Mar 2, 2010
Sent to the Assembly Committee on Rules.
-
Mar 2, 2010
The committee voted to recommend passing it, 11 to 0.
-
Feb 17, 2010
The committee held a public hearing.
-
Feb 17, 2010
A state agency sent in its estimate of the cost.
-
Feb 9, 2010
Sent to the Assembly Committee on Criminal Justice.
-
Feb 9, 2010
Introduced in the Assembly.
See the official record, word for word Hide the official record
- Feb 9, 2010 · Assembly
Introduced by Representatives Hraychuck, Turner, Sherman, Pasch, Hubler, Berceau, Ballweg, Mursau, Molepske Jr. and Vos;Cosponsored by Senators Jauch, Coggs, Taylor, Harsdorf, Holperin, Vinehout, Schultz, Lehman, Miller and Grothman
- Feb 9, 2010 · Assembly
Read first time and referred to committee on Criminal Justice
- Feb 17, 2010 · Assembly
Fiscal estimate received
- Feb 17, 2010 · Assembly
Public hearing held
- Feb 24, 2010 · Assembly
Executive action taken
- Mar 2, 2010 · Assembly
Report passage recommended by committee on Criminal Justice, Ayes 11, Noes 0
- Mar 2, 2010 · Assembly
Referred to committee on Rules
- Mar 2, 2010 · Assembly
Placed on calendar 3-4-2010 by committee on Rules
- Mar 4, 2010 · Assembly
Read a second time
- Mar 4, 2010 · Assembly
Ordered to a third reading
- Mar 4, 2010 · Assembly
Rules suspended
- Mar 4, 2010 · Assembly
Read a third time and passed
- Mar 4, 2010 · Assembly
Ordered immediately messaged
- Mar 5, 2010 · Senate
Received from Assembly
- Mar 8, 2010 · Senate
Read first time and referred to committee on Ethics Reform and Government Operations
- Mar 17, 2010 · Senate
Public hearing held
- Apr 6, 2010 · Senate
Executive action taken
- Apr 7, 2010 · Senate
Report concurrence recommended by committee on Ethics Reform and Government Operations, Ayes 5, Noes 0
- Apr 7, 2010 · Senate
Available for scheduling
- Apr 16, 2010 · Senate
Placed on calendar 4-20-2010 pursuant to Senate Rule 18(1)
- Apr 20, 2010 · Senate
Read a second time
- Apr 20, 2010 · Senate
Ordered to a third reading
- Apr 20, 2010 · Senate
Rules suspended
- Apr 20, 2010 · Senate
Read a third time and concurred in
- Apr 20, 2010 · Senate
Ordered immediately messaged
- Apr 20, 2010 · Assembly
Received from Senate concurred in
- May 6, 2010 · Assembly
Report correctly enrolled
- May 6, 2010 · Assembly
Presented to the Governor on 5-6-2010
- May 7, 2010 · Assembly
Report approved by the Governor on 5-7-2010. 2009 Wisconsin Act 264
- May 10, 2010 · Assembly
Published 5-21-2010
Terms on this page
Wisconsin Act
The number a bill gets when it becomes law, like 2025 Wisconsin Act 12.
Official term: Act. More in the glossary
Legislative Reference Bureau
The Legislature's nonpartisan office that drafts bills and writes the summary at the top of each one.
Official term: LRB analysis. More in the glossary
Author
A lawmaker who formally puts a bill forward. The text itself is drafted by the Legislative Reference Bureau.
Official term: Author, coauthor. More in the glossary
Signed on in support
Lawmakers who back a bill without being one of its authors, often from the other chamber.
Official term: Cosponsor. More in the glossary
Cost estimate
A state agency's estimate of what a bill would cost or save.
Official term: Fiscal estimate. More in the glossary
Roll call
A vote where each lawmaker's yes or no is recorded by name.
Official term: Roll call vote. More in the glossary
From the Wisconsin Legislature's official record, checked Sep 15, 2026. See the source
Wisconsin Act
The number a bill gets when it becomes law, like 2025 Wisconsin Act 12.
Official term: Act
Legislative Reference Bureau
The Legislature's nonpartisan office that drafts bills and writes the summary at the top of each one.
Official term: LRB analysis
Signed on in support
Lawmakers who back a bill without being one of its authors, often from the other chamber.
Official term: Cosponsor
Cost estimate
A state agency's estimate of what a bill would cost or save.
Official term: Fiscal estimate
Roll call
A vote where each lawmaker's yes or no is recorded by name.
Official term: Roll call vote