Skip to content
Bills from the 2009–10 session

Assembly Bill 78

Judicial discretion in certain John Doe proceedings and the provision of attorney representation of state employees at John Doe proceedings

Topics: Court: Procedure, Crime and criminals, District attorney, Judge, Public employee, Public officers

Stopped before the full Assembly voted

The recommended passing it, but the full Assembly never voted on it. To try again, a lawmaker would have to start a new bill.

  1. Introduced, passed

    Feb 24, 2009

  2. Committee, passed

    Approved

  3. Assembly vote, stopped here

    Stopped here. The full Assembly never voted on it.

  4. Senate vote, not reached

  5. Governor, not reached

  6. Law, not reached

Latest entry in the official record, Apr 28, 2010: “Failed to pass pursuant to ⁠”

Read the bill

Following saves it on this device. New actions show on your Following page. You can also get updates in a feed reader.

What it would have done

Summary by the , the Legislature's nonpartisan drafting office. It's their wording, not ours.

Under current law, under a John Doe proceeding, a person who believes a crime has been committed may complain to a judge. Then the judge must ascertain if a crime has been committed. The scope of examination is within the judge's discretion.

If the judge determines that a crime has probably been committed, she or he will issue a warrant for the arrest of the accused.

Read the full summary

Under this bill, if a district attorney who believes a crime has been committed complains to a judge, the judge must convene a John Doe proceeding as described above except that the judge does not issue a warrant for the arrest of the accused because the district attorney has that ability as under current law. If a person other than a district attorney who believes a crime has been committed complains to a judge, the judge must refer the complaint to the district attorney. If the district attorney refuses to issue a charge, the judge must convene a proceeding if the judge determines that the proceeding is necessary to determine if a crime has been committed. The judge has discretion over the scope of the examination, and the judge may issue a criminal complaint if the judge finds sufficient evidence to warrant prosecution. In determining whether to convene a proceeding, this bill specifies that a judge may consider law enforcement investigative reports, records and case files of the district attorney, and any other written records that the judge finds relevant.

In determining whether to issue a complaint, this bill specifies that the judge must consider law enforcement investigative reports, records and case files of the district attorney, and any other written records that the judge finds relevant.

This bill also adds statutory cross-references to three John Doe references to aid individuals in finding the John Doe statute.

Under current law, if an action is brought against a state officer or employee for acts committed while carrying out his or her state duties, and the court finds that the defendant was acting within the scope of his or her employment, the state pays the damages and costs, and provides legal representation or pays the defendant's attorney fees and litigation costs.

This bill provides these protections and benefits to a state officer or employee who is the subject of a John Doe proceeding if the charge is for an act done within the person's official capacity, within the scope of the person's employment, and the attorney general determined that the person was acting in good faith. In addition, these protections and benefits apply regardless of the attorney general's determination of good faith if the person is found not guilty in a criminal action commenced as the result of the John Doe proceeding. The bill provides that the protections and benefits provided include the payment of attorney fees, costs, and fines arising out of the criminal action.

Who's behind it

15 lawmakers are its ⁠. 8 are Republicans, 5 are Democrats and 1 is a Independent. 1 has no party on record.

10 more lawmakers ⁠.

See all 25 names

Authors (15)

Signed on in support (10)

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 was one vote on this bill.

Assembly Committee on Judiciary and Ethics vote on an amendment

Passed, 8 to 2 · Apr 23, 2009

No member-by-member record exists for this vote. Committee votes and some older sessions record totals only.

Official motion: “Report Assembly Amendment 2 adoption recommended by committee on Judiciary and Ethics, Ayes 8, Noes 2”. Official record · This vote on its own page

What happened

  1. Apr 28, 2010

    The session ended, and the bill died with it.

  2. Apr 23, 2009

    Sent to the Assembly Committee on Rules.

  3. Apr 23, 2009

    The committee voted to recommend passing it, 9 to 1.

  4. Mar 17, 2009

    A state agency sent in its estimate of the cost.

  5. Mar 10, 2009

    The committee held a public hearing.

  6. Mar 2, 2009

    A state agency sent in its estimate of the cost.

  7. Feb 24, 2009

    Sent to the Assembly Committee on Judiciary and Ethics.

  8. Feb 24, 2009

    Introduced in the Assembly.

See the official record, word for word
  1. Feb 24, 2009 · Assembly

    Introduced by Representatives Hintz, Spanbauer, Townsend, Ballweg, Shilling, Van Roy, Kaufert, Berceau, Ziegelbauer, Garthwaite, Jorgensen, Sinicki, Friske, Bies and Nerison;Cosponsored by Senators Kreitlow, Erpenbach, Taylor, Vinehout, Schultz, Hansen, Lehman, Holperin, Kapanke and Hopper

  2. Feb 24, 2009 · Assembly

    Read first time and referred to committee on Judiciary and Ethics

  3. Mar 2, 2009 · Assembly

    Fiscal estimate received

  4. Mar 10, 2009 · Assembly

    Public hearing held

  5. Mar 17, 2009 · Assembly

    Fiscal estimate received

  6. Mar 20, 2009 · Assembly

    Assembly amendment 1 offered by Representative Gundrum

  7. Apr 17, 2009 · Assembly

    Assembly amendment 2 offered by Representative Gundrum

  8. Apr 17, 2009 · Assembly

    Assembly amendment 3 offered by Representative Gundrum

  9. Apr 17, 2009 · Assembly

    Assembly amendment 4 offered by Representative Gundrum

  10. Apr 21, 2009 · Assembly

    Executive action taken

  11. Apr 23, 2009 · Assembly

    Report Assembly Amendment 2 adoption recommended by committee on Judiciary and Ethics, Ayes 8, Noes 2

  12. Apr 23, 2009 · Assembly

    Report passage as amended recommended by committee on Judiciary and Ethics, Ayes 9, Noes 1

  13. Apr 23, 2009 · Assembly

    Referred to committee on Rules

  14. Apr 23, 2009 · Assembly

    Assembly substitute amendment 1 offered by Representative Kessler

  15. Apr 23, 2009 · Assembly

    Placed on calendar 4-28-2009 by committee on Rules

  16. Apr 28, 2009 · Assembly

    Laid on the table

  17. Apr 28, 2010 · Assembly

    Failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1

Terms on this page

Committee

A small group of lawmakers that looks at a bill first. Most bills never leave committee.

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

Committee

A small group of lawmakers that looks at a bill first. Most bills never leave committee.

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

Author

A lawmaker who formally puts a bill forward. The text itself is drafted by the Legislative Reference Bureau.

Official term: Author, coauthor

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