Wisconsin Assembly Bill AB84

Wisconsin 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/28/25
• Refer: 2/28/25
• Failed: 3/23/26

Caption

An Act to amend 20.455 (2) (hd) and 48.48 (19); to create 20.437 (1) (hf), 814.75 (28), 814.76 (21), 944.35 and 973.05 (2m) (fr) of the statutes; Relating to: prostitution crime surcharge and making an appropriation. (FE)

Summary

AB84 creates a new mandatory $5,000 “prostitution crime surcharge” for people convicted of, or placed on probation for, certain prostitution-related offenses, including patronizing or soliciting prostitutes, pandering, keeping a place of prostitution, soliciting a child for prostitution, and patronizing a child. The surcharge is added under the court cost statutes and must be paid in full, with collection handled through the circuit court clerk, county treasurer, and secretary of administration. The bill directs the surcharge revenue into the state general fund and then splits it evenly between two appropriations: one for treatment and services for sex-trafficking victims, and one for criminal investigative operations, prosecution, and task force activity related to Internet crimes against children. It also makes a related change to the child trafficking services statute to ensure funding can support services statewide, including both urban and rural areas.

Impact

AB84 would add a new court-imposed financial penalty to Wisconsin’s criminal code and court cost framework, creating new statutory sections for the surcharge, collection, and payment priority. It would also amend existing appropriations and child trafficking services provisions so that surcharge revenue can be used for victim services and child exploitation enforcement. The bill applies only to offenses committed on or after its effective date.

Sentiment

The bill appears to have been framed as a punitive-and-supportive measure: increasing financial consequences for prostitution-related offenses while directing money toward sex-trafficking victim services and child exploitation enforcement. No committee transcripts or recorded votes are provided, and the bill ultimately failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1, so there is no documented floor-level support or opposition in the supplied materials. Based on the text alone, the proposal likely appealed to advocates of tougher enforcement and victim services.

Contention

The main policy tension is between using a large mandatory surcharge as a deterrent/punishment for prostitution-related offenses and the concern that such a fee may be burdensome for defendants, especially those with limited means. Another potential point of contention is the allocation of revenue: half to sex-trafficking victim services and half to Internet crimes against children enforcement, which may draw differing views about whether those uses are sufficiently connected to the underlying offenses. The bill’s inclusion of offenses involving children and trafficking-related conduct suggests broad public-safety support, but the absence of recorded debate prevents identifying specific opponents or arguments from the provided record.