Assembly Bill 769
Evidentiary recordings of persons under the age of 18 engaging in sexually explicit conduct and attempt of certain sex crimes against children and providing penalties
Topics: Children: Protection and services, Court: Procedure, Evidence, Legislature: Criminal Penalties, Joint Review Committee on, Police, Sex crimes, Youth
Passed the Assembly, then stopped
The Assembly passed it on Apr 15, 2010, but the Senate never voted on it. A bill has to . To try again, a lawmaker would have to start a new bill.
-
Introduced, passed
Feb 23, 2010
-
Committee, passed
Approved
-
Assembly vote, passed
Passed Apr 15, 2010
-
Senate vote, stopped here
Stopped here. The Senate never voted on it.
-
Governor, not reached
-
Law, not reached
Latest entry in the official record, Apr 28, 2010: “Failed to concur in pursuant to ”
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
Second chamber's vote
A bill has to pass both the Assembly and the Senate in the same form before it goes to the governor.
Official term: Concurrence. More in the glossary
Senate Joint Resolution 1
The session's calendar. Any bill not passed by its last voting day dies.
Official term: Failed to pass pursuant to SJR 1. 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 would have done
Summary by the , the Legislature's nonpartisan drafting office. It's their wording, not ours.
Under current law, a district attorney must disclose to the defense, and permit the defense to inspect, copy, or photograph, any physical evidence that the district attorney intends to use as evidence against that defendant in a trial. Under this bill, if the evidence is a recording of a child engaging in sexually explicit conduct, the defense may inspect the recording only in a location maintained by the court or a law enforcement agency, one of which must, under this bill, retain possession, custody, and control of the recording and must provide the defense opportunity to examine, inspect, and view the recording. The defense may receive a copy for limited purposes only if a court finds that the defense has not had opportunity to examine, inspect, or view the recording.
Under current law, a person who causes a person under the age of 18 to view or listen to sexually explicit conduct is guilty of a felony if the viewing or listening is for sexual arousal or gratification of the actor or for humiliating or degrading the person under the age of 18. Also under current law, a person who communicates via a computer with an individual whom the person believes is under 16 years old with the intent to have sexual intercourse or sexual contact with an individual under 16 years old is guilty of a felony. This bill makes the attempt to do either of these crimes a felony punishable as the completed crime would currently be punishable.
Read the full summary Show less
Because this bill creates a new crime or revises a penalty for an existing crime, the Joint Review Committee on Criminal Penalties may be requested to prepare a report concerning the proposed penalty and the costs or savings that are likely to result if the bill is enacted.
Who's behind it
4 representatives are its . 2 are Democrats and 2 are Republicans.
2 more lawmakers .
See all 6 names Hide the names
Authors (4)
- Terese Berceau · Democrat, Assembly
- Edward Brooks · Republican, Assembly
- Tony Staskunas · Democrat, Assembly
- Scott Suder · Republican, Assembly
Signed on in support (2)
- Julie M. Lassa · Democrat, Senate
- Jim Sullivan · Democrat, Senate
What it would cost
State agencies filed a . Each opens as a PDF from the Legislature.
Versions and amendments
Every text the Legislature printed for this bill, including proposed changes. Each opens on the Legislature's site.
How lawmakers voted
There were 3 votes on this bill.
Assembly Committee on Criminal Justice vote to recommend it
Passed, 9 to 1 · Apr 6, 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 9, Noes 1”. Official record · This vote on its own page
Assembly vote on an amendment
Passed, 72 to 25 · Apr 15, 2010
No member-by-member record exists for this vote. Committee votes and some older sessions record totals only.
Official motion: “Assembly amendment 1 laid on table, Ayes 72, Noes 25”. Official record · This vote on its own page
Senate Committee on Judiciary vote to recommend it
Passed, 5 to 0 · Apr 20, 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 Judiciary, Corrections, Insurance, Campaign Finance Reform, and Housing, Ayes 5, Noes 0”. Official record · This vote on its own page
What happened
-
Apr 28, 2010
The session ended, and the bill died with it.
-
Apr 20, 2010
The committee voted to recommend passing it, 5 to 0.
-
Apr 16, 2010
Sent to the Senate Committee on Judiciary, Corrections, Insurance, Campaign Finance Reform, and Housing.
-
Apr 16, 2010
The Senate received it.
-
Apr 15, 2010
The Assembly passed it.
-
Apr 6, 2010
Sent to the Assembly Committee on Rules.
-
Apr 6, 2010
The committee voted to recommend passing it, 9 to 1.
-
Mar 19, 2010
A state agency sent in its estimate of the cost.
-
Mar 18, 2010
The committee held a public hearing.
-
Mar 12, 2010
A state agency sent in its estimate of the cost.
-
Mar 2, 2010
A state agency sent in its estimate of the cost.
-
Mar 1, 2010
A state agency sent in its estimate of the cost.
-
Feb 23, 2010
Sent to the Assembly Committee on Criminal Justice.
-
Feb 23, 2010
Introduced in the Assembly.
See the official record, word for word Hide the official record
- Feb 23, 2010 · Assembly
Introduced by Representatives Staskunas, Berceau, Brooks and Suder;Cosponsored by Senators Lassa and Sullivan
- Feb 23, 2010 · Assembly
Read first time and referred to committee on Criminal Justice
- Mar 1, 2010 · Assembly
Fiscal estimate received
- Mar 2, 2010 · Assembly
Fiscal estimate received
- Mar 12, 2010 · Assembly
Fiscal estimate received
- Mar 18, 2010 · Assembly
Public hearing held
- Mar 19, 2010 · Assembly
Fiscal estimate received
- Apr 1, 2010 · Assembly
Executive action taken
- Apr 6, 2010 · Assembly
Report passage recommended by committee on Criminal Justice, Ayes 9, Noes 1
- Apr 6, 2010 · Assembly
Referred to committee on Rules
- Apr 13, 2010 · Assembly
Made a special order of business at 11:40 A.M. on 4-15-2010 pursuant to Assembly Resolution 22
- Apr 15, 2010 · Assembly
Read a second time
- Apr 15, 2010 · Assembly
Assembly amendment 1 offered by Representatives Kessler, Sherman, Colon, Young, A. Williams and Schneider
- Apr 15, 2010 · Assembly
Assembly amendment 1 laid on table, Ayes 72, Noes 25
- Apr 15, 2010 · Assembly
Ordered to a third reading
- Apr 15, 2010 · Assembly
Rules suspended
- Apr 15, 2010 · Assembly
Read a third time and passed
- Apr 15, 2010 · Assembly
Ordered immediately messaged
- Apr 16, 2010 · Senate
Received from Assembly
- Apr 16, 2010 · Senate
Read first time and referred to committee on Judiciary, Corrections, Insurance, Campaign Finance Reform, and Housing
- Apr 20, 2010 · Senate
Report concurrence recommended by committee on Judiciary, Corrections, Insurance, Campaign Finance Reform, and Housing, Ayes 5, Noes 0
- Apr 20, 2010 · Senate
Available for scheduling
- Apr 28, 2010 · Senate
Failed to concur in pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1
Terms on this page
Second chamber's vote
A bill has to pass both the Assembly and the Senate in the same form before it goes to the governor.
Official term: Concurrence. More in the glossary
Senate Joint Resolution 1
The session's calendar. Any bill not passed by its last voting day dies.
Official term: Failed to pass pursuant to SJR 1. 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
Second chamber's vote
A bill has to pass both the Assembly and the Senate in the same form before it goes to the governor.
Official term: Concurrence
Senate Joint Resolution 1
The session's calendar. Any bill not passed by its last voting day dies.
Official term: Failed to pass pursuant to SJR 1
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