Skip to content
Bills from the 2009–10 session

Senate Bill 51

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

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

Became law

The governor signed it on Jun 15, 2009. It's ⁠.

  1. Introduced, passed

    Feb 11, 2009

  2. Committee, passed

    Approved

  3. Senate vote, passed

    Passed Mar 24, 2009

  4. Assembly vote, passed

    Passed 99 to 0

  5. Governor, passed

    Signed

  6. Law, here now

    2009 Wisconsin Act 24

Latest entry in the official record, Jun 18, 2009: “Published 6-26-2009.”

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 does

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

10 senators are its ⁠. 7 are Democrats and 3 are Republicans.

15 more lawmakers ⁠.

See all 25 names

Authors (10)

Signed on in support (15)

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 4 votes on this bill.

Senate Committee on Judiciary vote to recommend it

Passed, 5 to 0 · Mar 18, 2009

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 Judiciary, Corrections, Insurance, Campaign Finance Reform, and Housing, Ayes 5, Noes 0”. Official record · This vote on its own page

Assembly vote to pass it

Passed, 97 to 2 · Apr 28, 2009

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

Official motion: “Read a third time and concurred in as amended, Ayes 97, Noes 2”. Official record · This vote on its own page

Assembly vote on an amendment

Passed, 99 to 0 · Apr 28, 2009

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

Official motion: “Assembly amendment 2 adopted, Ayes 99, Noes 0”. Official record · This vote on its own page

Assembly vote on an amendment

Passed, 95 to 4 · Apr 28, 2009

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

Official motion: “Assembly substitute amendment 1 rejected, Ayes 95, Noes 4”. Official record · This vote on its own page

What happened

  1. Jun 18, 2009

    The new law was published.

  2. Jun 15, 2009

    The governor signed it. It became 2009 Wisconsin Act 24.

  3. Jun 11, 2009

    Sent to the governor.

  4. May 13, 2009

    “Action ordered immediately messaged” (the official wording)

  5. May 13, 2009

    1 more senator signed on in support.

  6. Apr 29, 2009

    The Senate adopted it.

  7. Apr 28, 2009

    The Assembly passed it too, 97 to 2.

  8. Apr 28, 2009

    The Assembly adopted it, 99 to 0.

  9. Apr 23, 2009

    Sent to the Assembly Committee on Rules.

  10. Mar 26, 2009

    The Assembly received it.

  11. Mar 24, 2009

    The Senate passed it.

  12. Mar 18, 2009

    The committee voted to recommend passing it, 5 to 0.

  13. Mar 11, 2009

    A state agency sent in its estimate of the cost.

  14. Feb 27, 2009

    A state agency sent in its estimate of the cost.

  15. Feb 25, 2009

    The committee held a public hearing.

  16. Feb 25, 2009

    1 more senator signed on in support.

  17. Feb 23, 2009

    A state agency sent in its estimate of the cost.

  18. Feb 11, 2009

    Sent to the Senate Committee on Judiciary, Corrections, Insurance, Campaign Finance Reform, and Housing.

  19. Feb 11, 2009

    Introduced in the Senate.

See the official record, word for word
  1. Feb 11, 2009 · Senate

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

  2. Feb 11, 2009 · Senate

    Read first time and referred to committee on Judiciary, Corrections, Insurance, Campaign Finance Reform, and Housing

  3. Feb 23, 2009 · Senate

    Fiscal estimate received

  4. Feb 25, 2009 · Senate

    Senator S. Fitzgerald added as a coauthor

  5. Feb 25, 2009 · Senate

    Public hearing held

  6. Feb 27, 2009 · Senate

    Fiscal estimate received

  7. Mar 11, 2009 · Senate

    Fiscal estimate received

  8. Mar 17, 2009 · Senate

    Executive action taken

  9. Mar 18, 2009 · Senate

    Report passage recommended by committee on Judiciary, Corrections, Insurance, Campaign Finance Reform, and Housing, Ayes 5, Noes 0

  10. Mar 18, 2009 · Senate

    Available for scheduling

  11. Mar 18, 2009 · Senate

    Placed on calendar 3-24-2009 by committee on Senate Organization

  12. Mar 24, 2009 · Senate

    Read a second time

  13. Mar 24, 2009 · Senate

    Ordered to a third reading

  14. Mar 24, 2009 · Senate

    Rules suspended

  15. Mar 24, 2009 · Senate

    Read a third time and passed

  16. Mar 24, 2009 · Senate

    Ordered immediately messaged

  17. Mar 26, 2009 · Assembly

    Received from Senate

  18. Apr 20, 2009 · Assembly

    Assembly substitute amendment 1 offered by Representative Kessler

  19. Apr 23, 2009 · Assembly

    Read first time and referred to committee on Rules

  20. Apr 23, 2009 · Assembly

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

  21. Apr 24, 2009 · Assembly

    Assembly amendment 1 offered by Representative Gundrum

  22. Apr 27, 2009 · Assembly

    Assembly amendment 2 offered by Representatives Hintz and Hebl

  23. Apr 28, 2009 · Assembly

    Read a second time

  24. Apr 28, 2009 · Assembly

    Assembly substitute amendment 1 rejected, Ayes 95, Noes 4

  25. Apr 28, 2009 · Assembly

    Assembly amendment 1 placed after Assembly amendment 2

  26. Apr 28, 2009 · Assembly

    Assembly amendment 2 adopted, Ayes 99, Noes 0

  27. Apr 28, 2009 · Assembly

    Assembly amendment 1 withdrawn and returned to author

  28. Apr 28, 2009 · Assembly

    Ordered to a third reading

  29. Apr 28, 2009 · Assembly

    Rules suspended

  30. Apr 28, 2009 · Assembly

    Read a third time and concurred in as amended, Ayes 97, Noes 2

  31. Apr 28, 2009 · Assembly

    Ordered immediately messaged

  32. Apr 29, 2009 · Senate

    Received from Assembly amended and concurred in as amended, Assembly amendment 2 adopted

  33. Apr 29, 2009 · Senate

    Available for scheduling

  34. May 12, 2009 · Senate

    Placed on calendar 5-13-2009 by committee on Senate Organization

  35. May 13, 2009 · Senate

    Assembly amendment 2 concurred in

  36. May 13, 2009 · Senate

    Senator Miller added as a coauthor

  37. May 13, 2009 · Senate

    Action ordered immediately messaged

  38. May 18, 2009 · Senate

    Report correctly enrolled on 5-18-2009

  39. Jun 11, 2009 · Senate

    Presented to the Governor on 6-11-2009

  40. Jun 15, 2009 · Senate

    Report approved by the Governor on 6-12-2009. 2009 Wisconsin Act 24

  41. Jun 18, 2009 · Senate

    Published 6-26-2009.

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

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