WI: County to work with municipalities on placement of violent sex offenders

Source: apg-wi.com 10/6/21

Local municipalities will be part of the violent sex offender placement review process in Kenosha County under a resolution approved by the Kenosha County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday.

Erin Decker, who worked to draft the resolution, said it requires the county to work with local municipalities, makes the process more transparent and requests the State Legislature clarify and revise certain definitions within the state statute.

“Right now the municipalities are not given a heads-up that this is going to happen until after the placement has been ordered by the court,” Decker said. “When they are looking for a place, they need to work with the municipalities to make sure that place fits the state statutes and it’s a good placement.”

State statute does not require communication between the county and the municipality on where the violent sex offender is proposed to be placed. Under the resolution, approved by a 17-6 vote, the county committee that reviews potential locations for placement of the most egregious offenders (adjudicated under Chapter 980) must notify municipal leaders within 10 business days of identifying a potential residence and collaborate to ensure it meets placement rules.

In his objection to the resolution, Supervisor Andy Berg cited the difficulty in placement violent sex offenders who are ordered into supervisor release and the danger of sex offenders being “dropped off” on the street because a location cannot be found.

“I know that when people do the crime, they’ve got to do the time,” Berg said. “When they get done with their time, they have to come back into our community somehow.”

Read the full article


Related posts

Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...


  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t
  4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  8. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  10. Please do not post in all Caps.
  11. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
  15. Please do not solicit funds
  16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

How is it PFRs are being “placed” when according to SCOTUS they are free to live and work like other citizens?

So now WI municipalities are dictating to state by county resolution that they must be included. Seems the inverse of state’s supremacy clause and related statutes. Am I reading this wrong? If municipality is demanding input, then the input will always be against placement locally. Too many cheifs and not enough indians just make for delay.