Teague v. Van Hollen
| Decision Date | 11 February 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. 2014AP2360.,2014AP2360. |
| Citation | 877 N.W.2d 379,367 Wis.2d 547,2016 WI App 20 |
| Parties | Dennis A. TEAGUE, Plaintiff–Appellant, Linda Colvin and Curtis Williams, Intervening Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. J.B. VAN HOLLEN, Walt Neverman, Dennis Fortunato and Brian O'Keefe, Defendants–Respondents. |
| Court | Wisconsin Court of Appeals |
On behalf of the plaintiff-appellant, the cause was submitted on the briefs of Jeffrey R. Myer and Sheila Sullivan of Legal Action of Wisconsin, Milwaukee. There was oral argument by Jeffrey R. Myer.
On behalf of the defendants-respondents, the cause was submitted on the brief of Anthony D. Russomanno, assistant attorney general, and Brad D. Schimel, attorney general. There was oral argument by Anthony D. Russomanno.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SHERMAN, and BLANCHARD, JJ.
¶ 1 Dennis Teague1 appeals a judgment of the circuit court dismissing his claims alleging statutory and constitutional violations by four Wisconsin officials ("the state officials"). The essence of Teague's claims is that the Wisconsin Department of Justice (DOJ) knowingly propagates inaccurate information about Teague each time it compiles and releases a report in response to a request from a member of the public for Wisconsin criminal history information that refers to Teague. Without declaratory, injunctive relief preventing that practice, Teague contends, DOJ will compile and release what amount to false positive criminal history reports on him.
¶ 2 The dispute centers around DOJ's use of a large criminal history database. Teague has obtained from DOJ a so-called "innocence letter," which in effect certifies that as of a particular day in 2009 Teague had no criminal convictions and that Teague should not be confused with another individual, ATP,2 who has a criminal history. The potential for confusion arose because ATP has in the past given Teague's name to authorities as an alias, and this is a fact that is reflected in DOJ's database, as one reference contained in ATP's criminal history record. Teague seeks to prevent DOJ from responding to requests for criminal history referring to Teague with the ATP criminal history in which Teague's name appears as an alias, without any reference to the innocence letter that Teague previously obtained from DOJ. Teague contends that if DOJ provides that response, Teague's reputation and opportunities for employment, housing, and the like could be impaired, because such responses could be read to imply that Teague and ATP are the same individual, who has used both names and has a criminal history.
¶ 3 For reasons explained more fully below, we affirm the following circuit court decisions: to dismiss Teague's claim under the Wisconsin public records law; to dismiss Teague's request for an order, under the authority of WIS. STAT. § 19.70 (2013–14),3 requiring DOJ to in some manner correct or supplement the database; and to dismiss Teague's constitutional claims.
¶ 4 The parties do not dispute pertinent facts. The following summary is largely based on facts found by the circuit court following a six-day trial to the court.
¶ 5 DOJ maintains a criminal history database through its Crime Information Bureau. State statutes require DOJ to maintain the database and set the fees that DOJ may charge for the costs of providing reports in response to criminal history search requests from the public, although details regarding the statutes do not matter to any issue raised on appeal. See WIS. STAT. §§ 165.83 –165.845, 165.82. What matters is that DOJ maintains the database and, by necessity, has established a system for compiling and releasing reports in response to search requests for criminal history referring to identified individuals.
¶ 6 The database pools arrest and conviction information provided by law enforcement agencies, the Wisconsin Department of Corrections, and the court system. The database now contains approximately 1.3 million criminal history records based on 1.3 million sets of fingerprints. Each record contains a "master" name, which is the name contained in the first submission to DOJ about an individual as identified by fingerprints. Records often also contain additional names. Thus, each record is linked to one set of fingerprints, and incorporates the name or names, and the date or dates of birth, provided by the submitting agencies to DOJ, beginning with a master name. The database treats each name, other than the master name, as an alias name. For example, if the master name for a record is John Smith, even if it were determined at some later point that "Smith's" legal name is Joe Jones, Jones is treated as an alias and the master name continues to be Smith.
¶ 7 As common sense suggests would be the case, an individual may be associated in the database with multiple master or alias names or multiple birthdates or both, because individuals sometimes use various names or birthdates, have legal name changes, and typographical errors occur. Conversely, and again as one would expect, a given master or alias name may be associated with any number of individuals. This may happen because a name is common, has been fraudulently used, or because of typographical errors. And, as to birthdates, many people share the same or closely matching birthdates, false dates of birth may be given, and again there can be errors.
¶ 8 In sum, as counsel for the state officials explained at oral argument, DOJ treats names and birthdates in the database as "non-unique," because names and birthdates are changeable. In contrast, fingerprints, considered to be permanent and unique to individuals, are the foundation of the database, with one set of fingerprints submitted in connection with criminal history defining each record.
¶ 9 Members of the public may submit requests to DOJ for information from the database using such identifiers for the subject of the request as name and birthdate. Requests may be accompanied by the subject's fingerprints, but DOJ does not require fingerprints. Requests not accompanied by fingerprints are called "name-based" requests. This is the type of request at issue in this case.
¶ 10 When DOJ receives a name-based search request—e.g., for criminal history referring to Dennis Antonio Teague, with a birthdate—DOJ searches the database for records that may be responsive, either because a record is an exact match or because there is an individual associated in the database with a combination of the first and last names and a date of birth matching or close to the queried date of birth. If the search does not find any matches or near-matches, DOJ's responsive report states that no record corresponds to the criteria submitted.
¶ 11 If the search produces a match or a near-match to a name contained in one or more records, DOJ responds with a report of the type at issue in this case. The report begins by displaying the information submitted by the requester, followed by explanatory material, portions of which we refer to below. The explanatory material is followed by the criminal record (i.e., record of arrests or convictions of a person identified by fingerprints) that has been identified as a match or near-match, and includes a photograph of the person identified by fingerprints. In contrast, if the search produces no matches or near-matches, DOJ responds with the statement, " NO CRIMINAL HISTORY FOUND. "
"Innocence Letters "
¶ 12 DOJ provides a process by which an individual can obtain what amounts to certification that the individual has no criminal history, at least as of the time of certification, when there is a potential for criminal history reports to suggest otherwise. The individual submits to DOJ a set of fingerprints and, if DOJ verifies that the submitted fingerprints do not match those linked to any record, DOJ sends the individual a notarized statement, sometimes called an "innocence letter." The innocence letter states that the individual has no criminal history as of that date, and that the individual should not be confused with another individual who has criminal history reflected on a record in the database. To clarify, when an individual submits fingerprints as part of this process, in order to be recognized as a unique individual, DOJ does not retain the submitted fingerprints. Only the fingerprints that are submitted by an agency in connection with an offense are linked to a record, as summarized above.
¶ 13 Teague submitted fingerprints as part of the DOJ innocence letter process and received such a letter in March 2009.
¶ 14 Individuals with innocence letters, such as Teague, are free to present the innocence letter to potential employers, landlords, or others who may be making or have made a criminal history check using identifiers of the individual. While DOJ keeps on file the innocence letters that it issues, under its current practices DOJ does not reference the existence of the letters in the database or otherwise make use of the letters in responding to criminal history requests. As we now explain, the essence of Teague's claims is that DOJ does not, but should, take the substance of innocence letters into account in responding to name-based search requests.
¶ 15 Teague's claims all arise from concern that, despite the fact that DOJ has memorialized Teague's lack of criminal history in an innocence letter, when a member of the public submits a name-based search request using Teague's name and birthdate, DOJ would release in response a report of the type described above that contains the criminal history record of ATP.4 This report lists Teague's name as an alias for ATP's name, because as referenced above ATP has given Teague's name, together with a date matching his date of birth, to authorities as an alias.5 Teague argues that DOJ is obligated to provide requesters with an explanation to avoid allowing requesters to falsely suspect that Teague might have...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Teague v. Schimel
...version unless otherwise indicated.3 This is a review of a published decision of the court of appeals, Teague v. Van Hollen , 2016 WI App 20, 367 Wis. 2d 547, 877 N.W.2d 379, affirming the circuit court's dismissal of all of Mr. Teague's claims, the Honorable Juan B. Colás presiding.4 Backg......
-
Tetzlaff v. Cnty. of Green Lake
...reviews balancing of public interests for and against disclosure de novo), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Teague v. Van Hollen, 2016 WI App 20, ¶ 23, 367 Wis.2d 547, 877 N.W.2d 379 ; State ex rel. Morke v. Donnelly, 155 Wis.2d 521, 531, 455 N.W.2d 893 (1990) (in camera ......
- Wis. Dep't of Revenue v. Orbitz, L.L.C.