STATE OF WISCONSIN

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Josh Kaul 17 W. Main Street
P.O. Box 7857
Attorney General
Madison, WI 53707-7857
www.doj.state.wi.us

Paul M. Ferguson
Assistant Attorney General
[email protected]
608/266-1221
TTY 1-800-947-3529
FAX 608/267-2779

June 21, 2024

To Whom This May Concern:

In response to public records requests received by the Wisconsin Department of

Justice (DOJ), a copy of DOJ’s Division of Criminal Investigation (DCI) investigative case file
for DCI’s investigation into the April 12, 2024 shooting incident, involving Outagamie County
Sheriff’s Department Sergeant Ellis Brooks, resulting in the death of William Jae Kil Nelson,
was prepared for release. The Outagamie County District Attorney determined there is no
basis to prosecute the law enforcement officer involved, and DCI is releasing its case file
pursuant to Wis. Stat.§ 175.47(5)(b).

The DCI case in question is 24-2574: Outagamie SO OID. That investigative case
file was reviewed in preparation for public release, and a copy of the investigative case file
records has been made available online on the Wisconsin Department of Justice’s website at
www.doj.state.wi.us/dci/officer-involved-critical-incident.

Certain information was redacted from the records, either because specifically
required by law or pursuant to the Wis. Stat. § 19.35(1)(a) public records balancing test.
These redactions are described below. In addition, these records were prepared for release
mindful that the purpose of the Wisconsin public records law is to shed light on the workings
of government and the official acts of public officers and employees. Building and Constr.
Trades Council v. Waunakee Comm. Sch. Dist., 221 Wis. 2d 575, 582, 585 N.W.2d 726
(Ct. App. 1998).

Well-established public policy recognizes the privacy rights of a deceased person’s

surviving loved ones. Cf. National Archives and Records Admin. v. Favish, 541 U.S. 157, 168,
171-72 (2004). In preparing these records for release, the Wis. Stat. § 19.35(1)(a) public
records balancing test was applied, and the public interest in treating surviving loved ones
of the deceased with respect for their privacy and dignity outweighed any public interest in
disclosure of the following records:

• Graphic images in photographs and video recordings of William Nelson at the incident
scene, hospital, and the Medical Examiner’s office, as well as reports of William
Nelson’s injuries and the aid provided to him.
Page 2

In performing the balancing test, the public interest in protecting the privacy of this
family, and in facilitating cooperation with law enforcement in sensitive investigations, also
outweighs any public interest in disclosure of the described records. Cf. Linzmeyer v. Forcey,
2002 WI 84, ¶ 38, 254 Wis. 2d 306, 646 N.W.2d 811.

Wisconsin Const. art. I, § 9m provides, in part, that crime victims are entitled to the
rights “to be treated with dignity, respect, courtesy, sensitivity, and fairness” and to privacy.
Related Wisconsin statutes recognize that these self-executing state constitutional rights
must be vigorously honored by law enforcement agencies and that crime victims include both
persons against whom crimes have been committed and the family members of those persons.
Wis. Stat. §§ 950.01 and 950.02(4)(a). The Wisconsin Supreme Court, speaking about both
Wis. Const. art. I, § 9m, and related victim rights statutes, has instructed that “justice
requires that all who are engaged in the prosecution of crimes make every effort to minimize
further suffering by crime victims.” Schilling v. Crime Victim Rights Bd., 2005 WI 17, ¶ 26,
278 Wis. 2d 216, 692 N.W.2d 623. Even in those situations in which a criminal prosecution
does not occur, it is the policy of our office to consider the privacy rights of those who could
be considered victims entitled to these protections when applying the Wis. Stat. § 19.35(1)(a)
balancing test regarding the release of records. Pursuant to the balancing test, DOJ
determined that these public policies requiring that crime victims be treated with respect for
their privacy and dignity outweigh any public interest in disclosure of the names or other
identifying information of these individuals where present within DCI case file records.
Accordingly, DOJ redacted information including victims’ names, victims’ family members’
names, home addresses, home telephone numbers, email addresses, images in video
recordings, and voices from audio recordings.

Pursuant to the Wis. Stat. § 19.35(1)(a) balancing test, DOJ determined that the
public interest in protecting the ability of law enforcement to gather information when
conducting sensitive investigations and in protecting the privacy of citizens involved in those
investigations outweighs any public interest in disclosure of information that could identify
witnesses and other individuals referenced by witnesses. Cf. Wis. Stat. § 19.31; Linzmeyer,
254 Wis. 2d 306, ¶¶ 30, 32, 39, 41. Due to the sensitive and sometimes controversial nature
of officer-involved critical incidents, public disclosure of the full names and other identifying
information for individuals interviewed or mentioned during interviews could expose these
individuals to unwanted public scrutiny, criticism, or pressure from outside sources, which
could have a chilling effect on future witnesses’ willingness to come forward and cooperate
with law enforcement in investigations of similar incidents. Accordingly, the following
information was redacted from the records prepared for release:

• Names of adult witnesses, family members, and others mentioned by individuals

interviewed. The names of law enforcement officers and other public employees
mentioned in the records were not redacted.

• Other information that would identify the above individuals, including dates of birth,
home addresses, home and personal cellular telephone numbers, employment
information, license plate numbers, and Vehicle Identification Numbers (VINs), and
photographs of vehicles.

• Voices from audio recordings.

Page 3

• Report number from a Grand Chute Police Department report.

Pursuant to the Wis. Stat. § 19.35(1)(a) balancing test, DOJ determined that the
public interest in avoiding unnecessary intrusion into the personal lives of persons
collaterally mentioned in a law enforcement report outweighs any public interest in
information about the conduct of governmental affairs. Furthermore, DOJ determined that
the public interest in protecting the privacy of these individuals, and in facilitating
cooperation with law enforcement in sensitive investigations, also outweighs any public
interest in disclosure of this described information. Cf. Linzmeyer, 254 Wis. 2d 306, ¶ 38.

In addition to the overall redactions set forth thus far, certain other specific types of
redactions were made from the records prior to release for the reasons explained below.

Birthdates, social security numbers, and driver’s license numbers of individual

persons were redacted to protect against identity theft or other unauthorized use following
any subsequent disclosure. Pursuant to the Wis. Stat. § 19.35(1)(a) balancing test, DOJ
determined that the public policy in favor of protecting the confidentiality of this economically
valuable individually identifiable information and preventing its misuse upon any
subsequent disclosure, as well as the public policies outlined in Wis. Stat. §§ 801.19, 801.20,
and 801.21, outweigh any public interest in disclosure of the dates of birth, social security
numbers, and driver’s license numbers.

Home addresses, home telephone numbers, and personal cellular telephone numbers
were redacted pursuant to the Wis. Stat. § 19.35(1)(a) balancing test. DOJ determined that
the public interest in disclosure of this information is outweighed by the public interest in
the expectation of privacy on the part of individuals in their personal lives and in protecting
the sources of law enforcement information and encouraging citizens to cooperate with law
enforcement investigators without undue concern that their private lives will become public
matters. Cf. Wis. Stat. § 19.31; Linzmeyer, 254 Wis. 2d 306, ¶¶ 30, 32, 39, 41. Additionally,
well-established public policy recognizing the confidentiality and privacy of the personal
contact information of an employer’s employees is expressed in Wis. Stat. § 19.36(10)(a). DOJ
determined that the same underlying public policy of protecting the confidentiality and
privacy of personal contact information outweighs any public interest in disclosure of this
information.

Usernames, user identification numbers, unique identification numbers, and IP

addresses for law enforcement officers were redacted pursuant to the Wis. Stat. § 19.35(1)(a)
balancing test. The safety of law enforcement personnel and the security of accessed law
enforcement systems would be compromised by public disclosure of this information. In
applying the balancing test, DOJ determined the public policy in favor of protecting the safety
of law enforcement personnel and the security of law enforcement systems outweighs any
public interest in disclosure of the redacted information. Cf. Linzmeyer, 254 Wis. 2d 306,
¶¶ 25-26, 30, 41.

Credit card numbers and insurance account numbers were redacted pursuant to
Wis. Stat. § 19.36(13). To the extent this information is not directly governed by Wis. Stat.
§ 19.36(13), this information was redacted pursuant to the Wis. Stat. § 19.35(1)(a) balancing
test to protect against identity theft or other unauthorized use following any subsequent
disclosure. The public interest in protecting this kind of economically valuable information
Page 4

from misappropriation or misuse is recognized in Wis. Stat. § 19.36(13), which prohibits

disclosure of financial identifying information of individuals. The same public interest in
protecting financial identifying information from misappropriation or other misuse applies
here. Therefore, DOJ determined that the public interest in protecting this economically
valuable information from misappropriation or misuse, as well as the public policies outlined
in Wis. Stat. §§ 801.19, 801.20, and 801.21, outweigh any public interest in disclosure.

Information of a purely personal nature, including prior employment, insurance

information, and medical information were redacted pursuant to the Wis. Stat.§ 19.35(1)(a)
balancing test. DOJ determined that the public interest in avoiding unnecessary intrusion
into the personal lives of individuals and protecting the privacy of these individuals
outweighs any public interest in disclosure of this information. See Memorandum from
J.B. Van Hollen, Attorney General, to Interested Parties (July 28, 2010). Also, regarding
medical information, well-established public policy recognizing the confidentiality and
privacy of personal medical information is expressed in Wis. Stat. § 146.82 and the federal
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). DOJ determined that the
same underlying public policy of protecting the confidentiality and privacy of personal
medical information outweighs any public interest in disclosure of the redacted information.
See also John K. MacIver Inst. for Pub. Policy, Inc. v. Erpenbach, 2014 WI App 49, ¶ 19 &
n.4, 354 Wis. 2d 591, 849 N.W.2d 888 (observing that “[p]ersonal finance or health
information” may be subject to redaction as “purely personal” in an email that otherwise is
subject to disclosure).

Information pertaining to the DCI and Outagamie County network infrastructure,

including the names of network drives and path details, was redacted pursuant to the
Wis. Stat. § 19.35(1)(a) balancing test. Disclosure of this highly sensitive information would
substantially increase the risk of an intrusion into the DCI and Outagamie County secure
networks by unauthorized users. Such an intrusion could expose the work product of DCI
and Outagamie County employees, law enforcement agents and officers, and other personnel
to the risk of loss, destruction, or manipulation. Additionally, the digital information stored
in the DCI and Outagamie County computer systems and/or software programs include the
personally identifying and private information of employees, investigative targets, crime
victims, and other third parties. For these reasons, the disclosure of the redacted information
could compromise the integrity of the entire DCI and Outagamie County computer systems,
the information electronically stored in them, and individuals’ privacy information. The
public interest in protecting the security of DCI’s and Outagamie County’s server networks
and computer systems—as well as DCI and Outagamie County personnel and other
individuals—and the integrity and confidentiality of the data stored therein, and in ensuring
that government can operate safely and effectively without disruption and unnecessary
interruption outweighs any public interest in disclosure of this information. Cf. Linzmeyer,
254 Wis. 2d 306, ¶¶ 31, 38; Democratic Party of Wisconsin v. Wisconsin Dep’t of Justice,
2016 WI 100, ¶¶ 13, 18-19, 21, 372 Wis. 2d 460, 888 N.W.2d 584.

Pursuant to the federal Driver’s Privacy Protection Act (DPPA), which, generally,
prohibits release of personal information and highly restricted personal information in
response to a public records request, personal information and highly restricted personal
information, as defined in DPPA, contained within DOJ records that was obtained from the
DOT Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) database was redacted. See 18 U.S.C. § 2721 et seq.;
Page 5

New Richmond News v. City of New Richmond, 2016 WI App 43, 370 Wis. 2d 75, 881 N.W.2d
339.

The names and specific details regarding the task force assignments of law
enforcement officers who responded to the scene to help investigate this case were redacted
to preserve the security and effectiveness of the law enforcement assignments and
techniques, and the safety, security, and effectiveness of the officers. In performing the public
records balancing test pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 19.35(1)(a), DOJ determined that the public
interest in effective investigation of crime and protection of public safety, including protecting
the ability of law enforcement to respond without jeopardizing officer safety or undermining
officer effectiveness by revealing their techniques and details about assignments, outweighs
any public interest in disclosure of the names and specific details regarding the task force
assignments of the officers. Cf. Wis. Stat. § 19.31; Linzmeyer, 254 Wis. 2d 306, ¶¶ 30, 32, 39,
41.

Certain information involving confidential law enforcement investigative technology

and techniques was redacted to preserve the effectiveness of that confidential technology and
those techniques, which would be undermined by disclosure. Release of this information
would threaten the integrity of future law enforcement investigations; would significantly
impair the future ability of law enforcement to investigate criminal activity effectively; and
would put at risk the safety of the public, law enforcement personnel, informants, witnesses,
and others involved in law enforcement investigations. In performing the public records
balancing test pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 19.35(1)(a), the strong public interest in protecting
public safety; in the safety of law enforcement personnel and others involved in law
enforcement investigations; in effective investigation and prosecution of criminal activity;
and in protecting the ability of law enforcement to use its technology and techniques
effectively and gather information confidentially when conducting sensitive investigations
outweighs any public interest in disclosure of this information. See Wis. Stat. § 19.31;
Linzmeyer, 254 Wis. 2d 306, ¶¶ 30, 32, 39, 41; Democratic Party of Wis., 372 Wis. 2d 460,
¶¶ 13, 18, 21.

Crime Laboratory records were redacted pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 165.79(1).

Emergency medical services (EMS) personnel working with the Grand Chute Fire
Department and Gold Cross Ambulance Service provided medical care at the scene for
William Nelson. Specific information regarding their assessment and treatment of William
Nelson, as observed or reported by witnesses or themselves, including in the audio portion of
dispatch recordings, was redacted from the records in accordance with Wis. Stat.
§§ 256.15(12) and 146.82(5)(c). To the extent the information is not directly governed by
Wis. Stat. §§ 256.15(12) and 146.82(5)(c), pursuant to the Wis. Stat. § 19.35(1)(a) balancing
test, DOJ determined that the same underlying public policy of protecting the confidentiality
and privacy of personal medical information, as well as the analogous restrictions on release
of patient treatment information described under Wis. Stat. § 256.15(12), outweigh any
public interest in disclosure of this information.

Specific information regarding observations, assessments, and descriptions of the

condition of William Nelson and aid provided by law enforcement regarding William Nelson,
as reported by those on the scene or relayed by other law enforcement on the scene, including
in audio recordings, was redacted pursuant to the Wis. Stat. § 19.35(1)(a) balancing test.
Page 6

Well-established public policy recognizing the confidentiality and privacy of personal medical
information is expressed in Wis. Stat. § 146.82 and HIPAA. DOJ determined that the same
underlying public policy of protecting the confidentiality and privacy of personal health
information, as well as the analogous restrictions on release of patient treatment information
described under Wis. Stat. § 256.15(12), outweigh any public interest in disclosure of the
redacted information.

Specific information identifying routine shifts worked by law enforcement officers was
redacted pursuant to the Wis. Stat. § 19.35(1)(a) balancing test in the interest of preserving
the safety of the officers, their families, and their homes. DOJ determined that the public
interest in protecting the security of the officers, their families, and their homes outweighs
any public interest in information regarding their routine shifts. Details regarding the
specific shifts worked by the officers involved on April 12, 2024, the day of the shooting
incident, were not redacted from the records.

DCI report number 24-2574/27 documents DOJ’s attendance at the autopsy

conducted by the Milwaukee County Medical Examiner, and receipt of preliminary autopsy
findings of the Milwaukee County Medical Examiner. The DCI report was included with the
released records; however, preliminary findings provided by the Medical Examiner and
contained within DCI’s report were redacted from the release. The preliminary findings were
provided to DOJ by the Milwaukee County Medical Examiner’s Office on the condition that
the preliminary findings would not be shared with any person outside the criminal
investigation, and the medical examiner’s office would not provide the preliminary autopsy
findings to DOJ without DOJ’s agreement to those conditions. Pursuant to the Wis. Stat.
§ 19.35(1)(a) balancing test, DOJ determined that there is a public interest in honoring the
conditions under which the medical examiner’s preliminary autopsy findings were provided
to DOJ and in cooperating with the medical examiner’s office so as to encourage the current
and future joint law enforcement efforts of our agencies. To not honor the conditions by
disclosing the preliminary autopsy findings would preclude future record-sharing and
significantly impair cooperative law enforcement efforts between DOJ and the Milwaukee
County Medical Examiner’s Office. Therefore, DOJ determined that the public interest in
effective investigation of crime and effective law enforcement, which is furthered by honoring
the conditions under which the Milwaukee County Medical Examiner’s Office provided the
preliminary autopsy findings to DOJ, outweighs any public interest in disclosure by DOJ of
the preliminary autopsy findings. Cf. Linzmeyer, 254 Wis. 2d 306, ¶¶ 30, 32, 39. If desired,
records from the medical examiner’s office may be requested directly from the Milwaukee
County Medical Examiner’s Office records custodian.

As documented in the DCI case file, body camera recordings and squad camera
recordings from the officers who responded to the scene of the officer-involved critical incident
were collected by DCI for review. The DCI case file contains body camera and squad camera
recordings from the Outagamie County Sheriff’s Office and the Grand Chute Police
Departments. Some of the body camera, squad camera, dispatch audio, and surveillance
camera footage capture the actions of William Nelson and the police interaction with William
Nelson. These were prepared for release. Due to the time necessary to review and prepare
these materials, the other videos and audio mentioned in this report are not included in this
release. DCI’s review of these recordings is summarized in individual reports within the DCI
case file.
Page 7

Photographs of currency were redacted pursuant to the Wis. Stat. § 19.35(1)(a)

balancing test. Federal law prohibits the counterfeiting of United States securities, the
uttering of and dealing in counterfeit securities, and the fraudulent using of paper as money
or to procure something of value. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 471, 472, 473, 491. These federal statutes
evidence the strong public interest in preventing any illegal counterfeiting and fraudulent
activity that may arise from the use of photocopies and photographs of currency. There is also
a strong public interest in protecting economically valuable information from
misappropriation or misuse, as evidenced by Wis. Stat. § 19.36(13). Disclosure of this
information could also undermine or impair law enforcement’s ability to prevent
counterfeiting and fraudulent activities. Therefore, in applying the Wis. Stat. § 19.35(1)(a)
balancing test, DOJ finds that the public interest in effective prevention of crime, and in
protecting economically valuable information from misappropriation, misuse, or fraud,
outweighs any public interest in disclosure of this information. See Wis. Stat. § 19.31;
Linzmeyer, 254 Wis. 2d 306, ¶¶ 30, 32, 39, 41; Democratic Party of Wis., 372 Wis. 2d 460,
¶¶ 13, 18, 21.

DOJ is not releasing records under court seal. See Wis. Stat. § 19.35(1)(a) (“Except as
otherwise provided by law”); Wis. Stat. § 19.36(1); see also Wis. Stat. § 801.21.

Only one copy of records for which duplicate copies exist has been included with the
records prepared for release. Stone v. Bd. of Regents, 2007 WI App 223, ¶ 20, 305 Wis. 2d 679,
741 N.W.2d 774.

The law permits DOJ to impose fees for certain “actual, necessary and direct” costs
associated with responding to public records requests. Wis. Stat. § 19.35(3). Pursuant to
Wis. Stat. § 19.35(3)(f), DOJ may require prepayment for the costs of locating (if applicable),
copying, and mailing the requested records if the total amount exceeds $5.00. Pursuant to
Wis. Stat. § 19.35(3)(e), in this instance, DOJ is waiving its fees, and the records are being
made available online at this time without any payment required.

Pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 19.35(4)(b), these determinations are subject to review by

mandamus under Wis. Stat. § 19.37(1) or upon application to a district attorney or the
Attorney General.

Sincerely,

Paul M. Ferguson
Assistant Attorney General
Office of Open Government

PMF:hpw

Enclosure