MADISON, Wis. — A Dane County circuit judge has ruled that the Wisconsin Department of Justice must release the names of every certified law enforcement officer in the state, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported.
Judge Rhonda Lanford sided with the Badger Project and the Invisible Institute, two news organizations that filed suit after the state DOJ denied a public records request for the names, ages, badge numbers and employment history of every officer in the state.
| DOWNLOAD: The patrol car checklist: A veteran-to-rookie field guide
“Law enforcement officers necessarily relinquish certain privacy and reputational rights by virtue of the amount of trust society places in them and must be subject to public scrutiny,” Lanford wrote in her decision.
The state DOJ declined to comment on the ruling, referring to a brief filed by Attorney General Josh Kaul in May 2025, the Journal Sentinel reported. In that brief, Kaul stated that releasing the records would be “reckless,” as it would place undercover officers in danger.
"[Without] knowing how each agency treats the release of information about its officers, it would be contrary to the public interest for DOJ to disclose information that could threaten current, non-DOJ law enforcement efforts or adversely affect the officers or agencies,” Kaul wrote.
The DOJ also argued that the release would pose an “undue burden” to compile, as it would have to contact every law enforcement agency to release the information.
Attorneys for the Badger Project and the Invisible Institute said the state did not provide concrete examples of how the release would endanger undercover officers and noted that dozens of other states have publicly released the information, the Journal Sentinel reported.
The Wisconsin Professional Police Association released a statement airing concerns with the ruling, saying it could impact officer recruitment.
“While we recognize and respect the important role that transparency plays in maintaining public trust, this ruling goes beyond transparency and raises serious concerns about officer safety, privacy, and the unintended consequences of aggregating sensitive information into a single, easily accessible database,” the association said.
