Wisconsin Assembly Bill AB358

Wisconsin 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 7/8/25
• Refer: 7/8/25
• Failed: 3/23/26

Caption

An Act to amend 157.70 (2r); to create 157.70 (1) (cg), 157.70 (3) (c), 440.03 (18) and 440.905 (3) of the statutes; Relating to: requiring reports on disturbed burial sites. (FE)

Summary

AB358 would change Wisconsin law governing burial sites by adding a reporting system for disturbances or potential disturbances at burial sites located within cemeteries, and at catalogued land contiguous to those burial sites. The bill also clarifies that lawful maintenance is not a prohibited disturbance under current burial-site protections, so routine upkeep would not itself trigger liability so long as it does not disturb human remains or the surface characteristics of the burial site. Under the bill, anyone who knows or has reasonable grounds to believe that a burial site in a cemetery, or adjacent catalogued land tied to that burial site, has been disturbed or may be disturbed in violation of law must report it as soon as reasonably possible to the local police department or county sheriff’s office. Law enforcement would then be required to prepare a report and send copies to the Burial Sites Preservation Board and the Cemetery Board. The Department of Safety and Professional Services would have to create a standardized reporting form, and the Cemetery Board would review the reports annually, publish them on its website, and submit an annual summary to DSPS with the location information for each reported incident. The bill’s main legal effect is to expand the administrative and reporting framework around burial-site disturbances without changing the basic prohibition on intentional disturbance. It would affect landowners, cemetery operators, law enforcement agencies, the Burial Sites Preservation Board, the Cemetery Board, and DSPS by creating new notice, documentation, and public-reporting duties. It also adds a specific statutory definition tying the term “cemetery” to existing law. The available context shows no committee testimony or recorded votes, so there is little direct evidence of debate. The bill ultimately failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1. Based on the text alone, the measure appears aimed at improving enforcement, transparency, and recordkeeping for burial-site protection, and its tone is procedural rather than punitive. The most likely points of contention would be the new reporting obligations on private individuals and local law enforcement, the public posting of disturbance reports, and the added administrative workload for state boards and DSPS. Supporters would likely view the bill as a way to better protect burial sites and ensure that suspected violations are documented and reviewed, while critics might question whether the reporting requirements are burdensome or whether public disclosure could create privacy or property-related concerns.

Impact

AB358 would amend s. 157.70 governing burial-site protections and create new duties in ch. 440 for DSPS, local police departments, county sheriffs, the Burial Sites Preservation Board, and the Cemetery Board. It would not broadly redefine burial-site law, but it would add a mandatory reporting and annual review system for disturbances or potential disturbances involving burial sites within cemeteries and adjacent catalogued land, while clarifying that lawful maintenance is not a prohibited disturbance.

Sentiment

There is no recorded committee discussion or vote history in the provided materials, so the bill’s sentiment must be inferred from its text and outcome. The measure appears generally protective and administrative in nature, suggesting a policy goal of improving oversight of burial-site disturbances. However, its failure to pass indicates it did not secure enough legislative support to advance.

Contention

The likely areas of contention are the scope of the new reporting mandate, especially the requirement that any person with knowledge or reasonable grounds to believe a disturbance occurred must report it to law enforcement, and the follow-on duties imposed on sheriffs and police departments. Another possible concern is the requirement that the Cemetery Board publish reports on its website and submit location details annually to DSPS, which could raise privacy, administrative burden, and implementation questions. Supporters would likely emphasize stronger protection and accountability for burial sites, while opponents may focus on workload, duplication of reporting, and public disclosure issues.