Wisconsin John Doe laws

A John Doe investigation is a legal proceeding in the state of Wisconsin that is governed by Wisconsin Statute section 968.26. John Doe investigations are initiated by a judge and allow law enforcement the ability to subpoena witnesses while simultaneously preventing them from legally discussing the investigation in public. Circuit judges oversee the investigations. A John Doe proceeding may be used to investigate "any conduct that is prohibited by state law and punishable by fine or imprisonment or both," with no limitation on the type of crime being investigated. A John Doe investigation is similar to a grand jury investigation, however in the case of the John Doe, there is no jury of peers but rather the case is strictly overseen by the judge.

Full statute

The following is the complete text for the statute governing John Doe investigations.

John Doe proceeding

See statutes: Chapter 968, Section 26 of the Wisconsin Code

(1) If a district attorney requests a judge to convene a proceeding to determine whether a crime has been committed in the court's jurisdiction, the judge shall convene a proceeding described under sub. (3) and shall subpoena and examine any witnesses the district attorney identifies.

(2) 

(a) Except in par. (am), in this subsection, "district attorney" includes a prosecutor to whom the judge has referred the complaint under par. (am).

(am) If a person who is not a district attorney complains to a judge that he or she has reason to believe that a crime has been committed within the judge's jurisdiction, the judge shall refer the complaint to the district attorney or, if the complaint may relate to the conduct of the district attorney, to another prosecutor under s. 978.045.

(b) If a district attorney receives a referral under par. (am), the district attorney shall, within 90 days of receiving the referral, issue charges or refuse to issue charges. If the district attorney refuses to issue charges, the district attorney shall forward to the judge in whose jurisdiction the crime has allegedly been committed all law enforcement investigative reports on the matter that are in the custody of the district attorney, his or her records and case files on the matter, and a written explanation why he or she refused to issue charges. The judge may require a law enforcement agency to provide to him or her any investigative reports that the law enforcement agency has on the matter. The judge shall convene a proceeding as described under sub. (3) if he or she determines that a proceeding is necessary to determine if a crime has been committed. When determining if a proceeding is necessary, the judge may consider the law enforcement investigative reports, the records and case files of the district attorney, and any other written records that the judge finds relevant.

(c) In a proceeding convened under par. (b), the judge shall subpoena and examine under oath the complainant and any witnesses that the judge determines to be necessary and appropriate to ascertain whether a crime has been committed and by whom committed. The judge shall consider the credibility of testimony in support of and opposed to the person's complaint.

(d) In a proceeding convened under par. (b), the judge may issue a criminal complaint if the judge finds sufficient credible evidence to warrant a prosecution of the complaint. The judge shall consider, in addition to any testimony under par. (c), the law enforcement investigative reports, the records and case files of the district attorney, and any other written reports that the judge finds relevant.

(3) The extent to which the judge may proceed in an examination under sub. (1) or (2) is within the judge's discretion. The examination may be adjourned and may be secret. Any witness examined under this section may have counsel present at the examination but the counsel shall not be allowed to examine his or her client, cross-examine other witnesses, or argue before the judge. Subject to s. 971.23, if the proceeding is secret, the record of the proceeding and the testimony taken shall not be open to inspection by anyone except the district attorney unless it is used by the prosecution at the preliminary hearing or the trial of the accused and then only to the extent that it is so used. A court, on the motion of a district attorney, may compel a person to testify or produce evidence under s. 972.08 (1). The person is immune from prosecution as provided in s. 972.08 (1), subject to the restrictions under s. 972.085.

History: 1989 a. 122; 1991 a. 88, 223, 315; 2009 a. 24.

A defendant must be allowed to use testimony of witnesses at a secret John Doe proceeding to impeach the same witnesses at the trial, even if the prosecution does not use the John Doe testimony. Myers v. State, 60 Wis. 2d 248, 208 N.W.2d 311 (1973).

An immunity hearing must be in open court. State ex rel. Newspapers, Inc. v. Circuit Court, 65 Wis. 2d 66, 221 N.W.2d 894 (1974).

A person charged as a result of a John Doe proceeding has no recognized interest in the maintenance of secrecy in that proceeding. John Doe proceedings are discussed. State v. O'Connor, 77 Wis. 2d 261, 252 N.W.2d 671 (1971).

No restriction under the 4th or 5th amendment precludes the enforcement of an order for handwriting exemplars directed by a presiding judge in a John Doe proceeding. State v. Doe, 78 Wis. 2d 161, 254 N.W.2d 210 (1977).

Due process does not require that a John Doe witness be advised of the nature of the proceeding or that the witness is a "target" of the investigation. Ryan v. State, 79 Wis. 2d 83, 255 N.W.2d 910 (1977).

This section does not violate the constitutional separation of powers doctrine. John Doe proceedings are discussed. State v. Washington, 83 Wis. 2d 808, 266 N.W.2d 597 (1978).

A balance between the public's right to know and the need for secrecy in John Doe proceedings is discussed. In re Wis. Family Counseling Services v. State, 95 Wis. 2d 670, 291 N.W.2d 631 (Ct. App. 1980).

A John Doe judge may not issue a material witness warrant under s. 969.01 (3). State v. Brady, 118 Wis. 2d 154, 345 N.W.2d 533 (Ct. App. 1984).

When a John Doe proceeding is not a joint executive and judicial undertaking, the procedure does not violate the separation of powers doctrine and is constitutional. State v. Unnamed Defendant, 150 Wis. 2d 352, 441 N.W.2d 696 (1989).

A John Doe judge may issue and seal a search warrant, and a district attorney may independently issue a criminal complaint, regardless of the existence of the John Doe. A John Doe cannot be used to obtain evidence against a defendant who has already been charged. State v. Cummings, 199 Wis. 2d 721, 546 N.W.2d 406 (1996), 93-2445.

To be entitled to a hearing, a John Doe complainant must do more than merely allege in conclusory terms that a crime has been committed. The complainant's petition must allege facts that raise a reasonable belief that a crime has been committed. State ex rel. Reimann v. Circuit Court for Dane County, 214 Wis. 2d 605, 571 N.W.2d 385 (1997), 96-2361.

A nonlawyer's questioning of a witness on the state's behalf at a John Doe hearing even if constituting the unauthorized practice of law did not require exclusion of the testimony at trial. State v. Noble, 2002 WI 64, 253 Wis. 2d 206, 646 N.W.2d 38, 99-3271.

Article VII, Section 5 (3), read together with ss. 808.03 (2) and 809.51 (1) is sufficiently broad in scope to permit the court of appeals to exercise supervisory jurisdiction over the actions of a judge presiding over a John Doe proceeding. When rendering judicial decisions in the context of a John Doe proceeding, the judge must create a record for possible review. On review of a petition for a writ stemming from a secret John Doe proceeding, the court of appeals may seal parts of a record in order to comply with existing secrecy orders issued by the John Doe judge. Unnamed Persons Numbers 1, 2, and 3 v. State, 2003 WI 30, 260 Wis. 2d 653, 660 N.W.2d 260, 01-3220.

A John Doe judge must have the authority to disqualify counsel, and may permit argument by counsel when necessary to ensure procedural fairness. Unnamed Persons Numbers 1, 2, and 3 v. State, 2003 WI 30, 260 Wis. 2d 653, 660 N.W.2d 260, 01-3220.

The John Doe judge erred as a matter of law by requiring an oath of secrecy from a witness's counsel when a secrecy order was in effect. Individual Subpoenaed to Appear at Waukesha County John Doe Case No. 2003 JD 001 v. Davis, 2005 WI 70, 281 Wis. 2d 431, 697 N.W.2d 803, 04-1804.

The circuit judge erred when in reviewing a John Doe petition he reviewed police reports containing information casting doubt on assertions in the petition and explained that his review of the petition and the police reports led him to conclude that the petitioner failed to allege facts sufficient to raise a reasonable belief that a crime has been committed. This section does not permit this sort of analysis at the threshold stage of determining whether a petition contains reason to believe that a crime has been committed. Williams v. Fiedler, 2005 WI App 91, 282 Wis. 2d 486, 698 N.W.2d 294, 04-0175.

A John Doe judge has exclusive authority to subpoena witnesses in a John Doe proceeding based upon the language of this section. Hipp v. Circuit Court for Milwaukee County, 2008 WI 67, 310 Wis. 2d 342, 750 N.W.2d 837, 07-0230.

The judge in a John Doe hearing is not required to examine all the witnesses a complainant produces and to issue subpoenas to all the witnesses a complainant wishes to produce. This section extends judicial discretion in a John Doe hearing not only to the scope of a witness's examination, but also to whether a witness need testify at all. Robins v. Madden, 2009 WI 46, 317 Wis. 2d 364, 766 N.W.2d 542, 07-1526.

Under sub. (3), as revised by 2009 Wis. Act 24, a John Doe judge must potentially undertake four inquiries: 1) decide whether to refer the John Doe complaint to the district attorney in the first instance; 2) decide whether it is necessary to conduct any additional proceedings if the district attorney chooses not to issue charges; 3) determine what, if any, witnesses to subpoena and examine if additional proceedings are deemed necessary; and 4) decide whether to issue a criminal complaint if the judge finds that the additional proceedings have produced sufficient credible evidence to warrant prosecution. Naseer v. Miller, 2010 WI App 142, 329 Wis. 2d 724, 793 N.W.2d 209, 09-2578.

Under the statute, as amended by 2009 Wis. Act 24, a judge has a mandatory duty to refer a John Doe complaint to the district attorney only if the four corners of the complaint provide a sufficient factual basis to establish an objective reason to believe that a crime has been committed in the judge's jurisdiction, the same as under the prior statute. Naseer v. Miller, 2010 WI App 142, 329 Wis. 2d 724, 793 N.W.2d 209, 09-2578.

Applicable law allows electronic transmission of certain confidential case information among clerks of circuit court, county sheriff's offices, and the Department of Justice through electronic interfaces involving the Department of Administration's Office of Justice Assistance, specifically including electronic data messages about an arrest warrant if the warrant was issued in John Doe proceedings that have been sealed under this section. OAG 2-10.

Limits of judge's authority in presiding over or conducting John Doe proceedings are discussed. 76 Atty. Gen. 217.

Proposed changes to the law

On March 11, 2015, a public hearing was held to discuss a proposed change to the existing John Doe statute. The proposed change was introduced on February 19, 2015, as Senate Bill 43 and on March 5, 2015, as Assembly Bill 68. The proposed change limits the use of John Doe investigations in several ways: the scope of crimes that can be investigated; the application of the secrecy orders; and the length of the investigation. Crimes would be limited to "certain felonies under the Criminal Code or any conduct punishable by fine or imprisonment or both that is allegedly committed by an on−duty law enforcement officer, corrections officer, or state probation, parole, or extended supervision officer." Secrecy orders "may apply only to the judge, the district attorney or other prosecuting attorney, law enforcement personnel, interpreters, and reporters who make or transcribe arecord of the proceeding" and any violation would be "subject to a fine of up to $10,000, imprisonment for up to nine months, or both." In addition, the length of investigations would be limited to six months with possible extensions for additional six-month periods (with no cap on the number of extensions), "provided a majority of 10 judicial administrative district chief judges find good cause" and the vote of each judge would be made public.

Recent news

This section links to a Google news search for the term "John + Doe + investigations"

John Doe investigations

See also

• John Doe investigations related to Scott Walker
• Recall of Wisconsin State Senators (2011)
• Scott Walker recall, Wisconsin (2012)