In Wisconsin, persons who have been convicted of felony sex offenses are required to register as sex offenders for either fifteen (15) years or, for some types of convictions, lifetime registration. Sex offenses requiring registration are listed at Wis. Stat. §301.45(1d)(b). Some offenses, which are designated as “level 1” or “level 2” sex offenses against minors; persons who are placed on lifetime supervision for a “serious sex offenses” pursuant to Wis. Stats §939.615; and persons who are deemed Special Bulletin Notification (SBN) offenders under Wis. Stat. §301.46(2m)(am), are subject to lifetime sex offender reporting (SOR) and GPS monitoring.
In June 1997, the Sex offender Registration and Community Notification Law went into effect in Wisconsin and gave law enforcement agencies the authority to disseminate information about certain sex offenders to the community, and it established the SBN process. Until September 2018, the Wisconsin Department of Corrections interpreted the SOR and SBN laws so that persons convicted of sex offenses on “2 or more separate occasions” was defined to mean persons who were convicted of sex offenses in two or more separate cases. On September 1, 2017, Wisconsin Attorney General Brad Schimel issued formal opinion OAG-02-17, in which he concluded that "separate occasions" could mean separate counts within just one case, as well as in separate cases. The DOC adopted Schimel’s opinion in 2018 and has applied it retroactively for many convicted sex offenders, regardless of the fact that this was not the law at the time of their sentencing. AG Schimel’s opinion is at https://www.doj.state.wi.us/sites/default/files/dls/ag-opinion-archive/2017/OAG-02-17.pdf.
Under the 2018 DOC interpretation, many individuals who were not subject to “Special Bulletin Notification” and lifetime GPS monitoring (and were never told they would face such by the sentencing judge) are now unexpectedly finding that they are, and that their future includes the wearing of a GPS bracelet for the rest of their lives. These surprise retroactive restrictions raise significant legal and constitutional concerns, including ex post facto, Fourth Amendment liberty and privacy, as well as due process and the right to adequate notice. It also could call into question the validity of many past plea bargains, which were based on the criminal law that defendants were advised of and as it existed at that time.
...