Wisconsin expungement: how the restrictive Wis. Stat. §973.015 framework actually works under the age-25 cap

Wisconsin's expungement framework under Wis. Stat. §973.015 represents one of the most procedurally restrictive state expungement systems in the country. The framework imposes substantial limitations that distinguish it substantially from the more accessible frameworks in states like Oregon (post-SB 397), Maryland (post-REDEEM Act 2023), Pennsylvania, and other reform-oriented jurisdictions. The framework's substantial restrictions include an age-25 cap (the defendant must have been under 25 at time of offense — not at time of conviction or sentencing), a maximum-6-year-imprisonment limit (substantially limiting felony eligibility), a critical procedural requirement that expungement must be ordered by the sentencing court AT THE TIME OF SENTENCING, categorical exclusion of OWI (Operating While Intoxicated) convictions, and substantial discretion remaining with the sentencing court whether to grant expungement even when statutory eligibility is met.

The substantive effect of Wisconsin expungement is also substantially limited compared to other state frameworks. When the court grants expungement under §973.015, records are sealed by the clerk of court and removed from Wisconsin Circuit Courts Access (WCCA/CCAP) — the public court records database that substantial Wisconsin employers, landlords, and others consult for background checks. However, the records are NOT removed from the state criminal history repository maintained by the Wisconsin Department of Justice, the conviction is NOT vacated or set aside (substantial distinction from some other state frameworks), and the underlying facts of the case can still be considered in subsequent sentencing per State v. Leitner, 2002 WI 77, 253 Wis. 2d 449, 646 N.W.2d 341. The substantial limitation in scope means Wisconsin expungement provides meaningful relief in the public records context (employment and housing applications) but doesn't provide the broader substantive relief available in other jurisdictions.

The procedural framework established by State v. Matasek, 2014 WI 27, 353 Wis. 2d 601, 846 N.W.2d 811 created the substantial procedural trap that has substantially limited Wisconsin expungement availability. The Wisconsin Supreme Court held that the statutory language "at the time of sentencing" means literally at the sentencing proceeding — circuit courts lose subject matter jurisdiction to grant expungement once the sentencing hearing concludes. A defendant who would have qualified for expungement but didn't request it at sentencing (or whose attorney didn't request it) cannot subsequently return to court for the relief. Substantial legislative reform attempts (AB 33 in 2019, AB 69 in 2021, AB 38 in 2023) to expand Wisconsin expungement eligibility and remove the at-sentencing requirement have not been enacted into law, leaving Wisconsin with one of the most restrictive frameworks among state expungement systems.

This is how the Wisconsin expungement framework actually works under §973.015, the substantive eligibility requirements with substantial limitations, the critical at-sentencing procedural framework established by State v. Matasek, the substantial substantive effect (limited to WCCA/CCAP public records), the categorical exclusions, and the strategic considerations for Wisconsin residents seeking the substantially limited record relief available under current law.

The substantive framework

Per Wis. Stat. §973.015(1m)(a)1:

"Subject to subd. 2. and except as provided in subd. 3., when a person is under the age of 25 at the time of the commission of an offense for which the person has been found guilty in a court for violation of a law for which the maximum period of imprisonment is 6 years or less, the court may order at the time of sentencing that the record be expunged upon successful completion of the sentence if the court determines the person will benefit and society will not be harmed by this disposition."

Five substantive elements

1. Under age 25 at time of commission of offense.

• Substantial age cap
• Time of commission (not conviction or sentencing)
• Substantial procedural identification
• Substantial limitation

2. Maximum imprisonment 6 years or less.

• Substantial offense severity limitation
• Excludes substantial felony categories
• Class H and I felonies eligible
• Most misdemeanors eligible
• Substantial limitation

3. Court orders expungement AT TIME OF SENTENCING.

• Critical procedural requirement
• Substantial procedural trap
• Substantial limitation on retroactive expungement
• Substantial Matasek precedent

4. Successful completion of sentence required.

• Conditional eligibility
• Substantial completion requirement
• Substantial procedural framework

5. Court must determine person will benefit and society won't be harmed.

• Discretionary determination
• Substantial judicial discretion
• Substantial substantive requirement

Effective date

For sentences imposed on or after July 1, 2009.

• Substantial procedural framework
• Pre-2009 convictions not eligible
• Substantial temporal limitation

Class H and I felonies eligible

Wisconsin felony classes:

• Class A: Life imprisonment — NOT ELIGIBLE
• Class B: Up to 60 years — NOT ELIGIBLE
• Class C: Up to 40 years — NOT ELIGIBLE
• Class D: Up to 25 years — NOT ELIGIBLE
• Class E: Up to 15 years — NOT ELIGIBLE
• Class F: Up to 12.5 years — NOT ELIGIBLE
• Class G: Up to 10 years — NOT ELIGIBLE
• Class H: Up to 6 years — ELIGIBLE (substantial felony category)
• Class I: Up to 3.5 years — ELIGIBLE
• Most misdemeanors: Up to 1-9 months — ELIGIBLE

Substantial limitation: Most serious felonies excluded.

Prior felony conviction disqualification

Per §973.015(1m)(a)(3):

• Prior felony conviction disqualifies for felony expungement
• Substantial limitation
• Substantial prior history consideration

Categorical exclusions

Per §973.015(1m)(a)(3) and related provisions:

Categorical exclusions:

1. OWI (Operating While Intoxicated):

• All OWI convictions — categorically excluded
• Misdemeanor OWI excluded
• Felony OWI excluded
• Substantial limitation

2. Violent crimes:

• Substantial violent crime exclusion
• Particular substantial substantive limitations

3. Sex offenses:

• Substantial sex offense exclusion
• Substantial registration requirements typically apply

4. Firearm-related convictions:

• Substantial firearm offense exclusion
• Substantial limitation

5. Class A-G felonies:

• Maximum imprisonment exceeds 6 years
• Substantially most serious felonies
• Substantial limitation

6. Department of Transportation records:

• Conviction records under §343.23(2)(a)
• DOT records NOT covered by §973.015
• Substantial limitation
• Substantial driving record consequence

Special provisions for "Peeping Tom" offenses:

• §942.08(2)(b), (c), (d) or (3)
• Court SHALL order expungement at sentencing if person under 18 at time of offense
• Substantial mandatory provision
• Substantial limited category

The State v. Matasek procedural trap

The most substantial procedural framework:

State v. Matasek, 2014 WI 27 (Wisconsin Supreme Court)

State v. Matasek, 2014 WI 27, 353 Wis. 2d 601, 846 N.W.2d 811:

Holding:

• Statutory language "at the time of sentencing" means literally at sentencing proceeding
• Circuit courts lose authority to grant expungement once sentencing concludes
• Substantial procedural limitation
• Substantial procedural trap

Substantial procedural consequences:

At sentencing:

• Defendant or counsel must request expungement
• Court must determine eligibility
• Court must determine benefit/harm balance
• Substantial substantive analysis
• Substantial procedural opportunity

After sentencing:

• Court no longer has authority
• Cannot return for expungement consideration
• Substantial procedural barrier
• Substantial limitation

Substantial Wisconsin Supreme Court reasoning:

• Legislature included "at the time of sentencing" intentionally
• Substantial statutory interpretation
• Substantial procedural framework
• Substantial limitation

Subsequent cases reinforcing Matasek

State v. Braunschweig, 2018 WI 113, 384 Wis. 2d 742, 921 N.W.2d 199:

• Substantial procedural reaffirmation
• Substantial limitation

State v. Arberry:

• Substantial procedural reaffirmation
• Substantial framework

Substantial procedural trap

Common substantial procedural failures:

Defendant unaware of expungement:

• Substantial procedural trap
• Substantial educational deficit
• Substantial loss of opportunity

Defense attorney doesn't request:

• Substantial procedural failure
• Substantial legal malpractice consideration
• Substantial loss for client

Court fails to consider:

• Substantial procedural failure
• Substantial appellate consideration
• Substantial procedural framework

Substantial mitigation:

• Eligible defendants MUST request at sentencing
• Counsel must inform clients
• Substantial procedural requirement
• Substantial planning consideration

The substantive effect

When the court grants expungement:

What expungement DOES

Substantial sealing:

• Records sealed by clerk of court
• Substantial procedural seal

WCCA/CCAP removal:

• Wisconsin Circuit Courts Access public website
• Most substantial public records database in Wisconsin
• Substantial public records protection
• Substantial employer/landlord background check impact

Court records accessibility limited:

• Available only with court order
• Substantial public access limitation
• Substantial procedural framework

What expungement DOES NOT do

Records NOT removed from:

• Wisconsin Department of Justice criminal history repository
• Federal databases
• Some employer/licensing databases
• Substantial limitation

Conviction NOT vacated:

• Conviction remains as legal matter
• Substantial substantive limitation
• Different from "set aside" frameworks in some states

Law enforcement maintains access:

• Law enforcement databases
• Substantial law enforcement access
• Substantial procedural framework

Underlying facts considered in subsequent sentencing. Per State v. Leitner:

• Court can consider facts of expunged conviction in sentencing other case
• Substantial substantive limitation
• Substantial procedural framework

Substantial limitations of "expungement":

• Limited scope vs. other state frameworks
• WCCA/CCAP focus
• Substantial public records limited
• Substantial individual analysis required

Juvenile expungement framework

Per Wis. Stat. §938.355(4m):

Substantial separate framework:

Juvenile adjudication:

• Found delinquent
• Substantial procedural framework

Expungement procedure:

• Upon reaching age 17
• Satisfactory compliance with dispositional order
• Petition court for expungement
• Substantial procedural framework

Substantial juvenile court protection:

• WCCA does NOT display juvenile adjudications
• Substantial existing privacy protection
• Substantial framework

Procedural requirements

For Wisconsin defendants/their counsel:

At sentencing

Critical procedural step:

Defendant must request expungement at sentencing:

• Substantial procedural requirement
• Substantial Matasek precedent
• Substantial procedural trap

Court determines eligibility:

• Age under 25 at offense
• Maximum 6 years imprisonment
• Substantial substantive analysis

Court determines benefit/harm balance:

• Person will benefit
• Society won't be harmed
• Substantial discretionary determination
• Substantial substantive analysis

Court orders expungement upon successful completion of sentence:

• Conditional order
• Substantial procedural framework
• Substantial future trigger

After successful sentence completion

Substantial procedural step:

Court orders actual expungement:

• Substantial procedural completion
• Substantial trigger event

Clerk seals records:

• Substantial procedural framework
• Substantial sealing

WCCA removal:

• Public court records database
• Substantial public records protection

Successful sentence completion definition

Substantial requirements:

• Probation completed satisfactorily
• All conditions met
• Restitution paid
• Fines paid
• Treatment completed (if required)
• No subsequent convictions during probation
• Substantial substantive requirements

If sentence NOT successfully completed:

• Expungement order doesn't take effect
• Substantial conditional framework
• Substantial limitation

Strategic considerations for Wisconsin defendants

For Wisconsin defendants facing potentially eligible offenses:

Pre-sentencing strategy

Substantial critical planning required:

Identify eligibility BEFORE sentencing:

• Age under 25 at offense
• Maximum 6 years imprisonment
• No categorical exclusions
• Substantial substantive analysis
• Substantial procedural identification

Engage qualified counsel:

• Wisconsin criminal defense attorneys
• Substantial procedural framework
• Substantial professional involvement valuable
• Substantial benefit of pre-sentencing planning

Address court's discretionary determination:

• Person will benefit (employment, education, housing)
• Society won't be harmed (rehabilitation evidence)
• Substantial substantive presentation
• Substantial procedural framework

Document substantial benefit case:

• Educational plans
• Employment opportunities
• Family circumstances
• Substantial rehabilitation evidence
• Substantial substantive case

At sentencing

Substantial critical procedural step:

Defense counsel MUST request expungement:

• Substantial procedural requirement
• Substantial counsel responsibility
• Substantial professional malpractice consideration

Address court's discretion specifically:

• Detailed benefit argument
• Detailed harm minimization argument
• Substantial substantive presentation
• Substantial procedural framework

Substantial procedural protection:

• Get court ruling on record
• Substantial procedural documentation
• Substantial appellate preservation

After sentencing

Substantial procedural compliance:

Complete sentence successfully:

• All conditions met
• No subsequent convictions
• Substantial requirements
• Substantial procedural framework

Maintain documentation:

• Probation completion certificate
• Substantial substantiation
• Substantial procedural framework

Apply for actual expungement:

• After successful completion
• Substantial procedural step
• Substantial procedural framework

Address Matasek procedural trap

Substantial limitation:

If expungement not ordered at sentencing:

• Cannot return to court later
• Substantial procedural barrier
• Substantial loss
• Substantial Matasek precedent

Limited alternatives:

• Wisconsin governor pardon (substantial process)
• Federal pardon (for federal convictions)
• Substantial limited options
• Substantial procedural framework

Address Wisconsin governor pardon

Substantial alternative remedy:

Wisconsin Pardon Advisory Board:

• Reviews pardon applications
• Substantial procedural framework
• Substantial substantive review
• Submits recommendations to governor

Substantial procedural requirements:

• Detailed application
• Substantial documentation
• Time-consuming process
• Substantial professional involvement valuable
• Substantial alternative for those who missed expungement

Coordinate with employment and housing planning

Substantial planning considerations:

Employment applications:

• WCCA-based background checks substantially affected
• Federal/state agency background checks may still show records
• Substantial coordination required

Housing applications:

• WCCA-based screening substantially affected
• Some private screening services may still have records
• Substantial coordination

Professional licensing:

• Substantial profession-specific considerations
• May still see expunged records
• Substantial individual analysis

Address federal background check implications

Wisconsin state-level expungement doesn't directly affect:

• FBI fingerprint database
• Federal employment background checks
• Federal firearms restrictions in some cases
• Federal immigration consequences

Substantial federal-state distinction:

• Substantial federal limitation
• Substantial individual analysis
• Substantial professional involvement valuable

Watch for related tax debt situations

Persons with criminal records affecting employment may face related tax debt issues:

• Comprehensive financial planning should address both record relief and tax debt resolution where applicable
• Substantial coordination

Plan for substitute for return situations

Substantial coordination consideration:

• Failure to file may result in SFR
• Substantial coordination with tax planning
• Substantial procedural framework

Document substantial procedural compliance

Strong cases include:

• Sentencing transcript (showing expungement ordered)
• Probation completion certificate
• All sentence condition completion records
• Substantial documentation
• Substantial procedural protection

Plan for substantial DOJ records limitation

Substantial limitation:

• Records remain in DOJ repository
• Substantial federal-state coordination
• Substantial limitation awareness

Watch the substantial post-sentencing limitation

Substantial procedural barrier:

• Cannot request expungement after sentencing
• Substantial Matasek precedent
• Substantial procedural trap
• Substantial professional involvement valuable

Address substantial recent reform attempts

Substantial monitoring required:

• AB 33 (2019) — not enacted
• AB 69 (2021) — not enacted
• AB 38 (2023) — not enacted
• Substantial limitation remains
• Substantial monitoring for future reform

Coordinate with federal tax lien framework

Substantial coordination consideration:

• Substantial financial implications
• Substantial coordination required

Plan multiple offense strategy

Substantial coordination:

• Each conviction requires separate expungement at its sentencing
• Substantial procedural framework
• Substantial planning consideration

Address OWI categorical exclusion

Substantial limitation:

OWI convictions:

• Cannot be expunged under §973.015
• Substantial categorical exclusion
• Substantial impact on substantial population
• Substantial limitation

Pursue other expungement pathways while accepting OWI remains:

• Substantial reality
• Substantial limitation
• Substantial pardon consideration as alternative

Address violent crime, sex offense, and firearm exclusions

Substantial limitations:

• Substantial categorical exclusions
• Substantial impact on substantial population
• Substantial limitation
• Substantial procedural framework

Plan for substantial benefit/harm balance presentation

Substantial substantive case:

• Detailed benefit argument
• Detailed harm minimization
• Substantial substantive presentation
• Substantial procedural framework
• Substantial professional involvement valuable

Address the substantial Class H/I felony framework

Substantial limited felony eligibility:

• Class H: Up to 6 years (eligible)
• Class I: Up to 3.5 years (eligible)
• Substantial limited category
• Substantial limitation vs. other states

Plan for substantial procedural complexity

Substantial professional engagement:

• Wisconsin criminal defense attorneys
• Substantial procedural framework
• Substantial Matasek-aware counsel
• Substantial benefit of professional representation

Document substantial rehabilitation evidence

Strong cases at sentencing include:

• Educational plans/progress
• Employment plans/history
• Family responsibilities
• Substantial rehabilitation evidence
• Substantial substantive case

Address the substantial age 25 cap strategically

Substantial limitation:

• Age at COMMISSION of offense
• Not at conviction or sentencing
• Substantial procedural identification
• Substantial individual analysis

Substantial implications:

• Offense at age 24 → potentially eligible (substantial)
• Offense at age 25+ → NOT ELIGIBLE
• Substantial individual analysis
• Substantial procedural framework

Watch for reform legislation

Substantial ongoing legislative attempts:

• Substantial reform momentum
• Substantial monitoring required
• Substantial individual planning consideration

Coordinate with Wisconsin AG's removal information

Wisconsin AG's office provides information on removal regarding limited categories of arrest information. Substantial:

• Wrongful arrest situations
• Substantial procedural framework
• Substantial limited alternative

For Wisconsin defendants and their counsel, the framework under Wis. Stat. §973.015 provides substantially limited record relief that requires substantial pre-sentencing planning to access. The substantial procedural restrictions — particularly the at-sentencing requirement reinforced by State v. Matasek, the age-25 cap (substantial limitation among state frameworks), the maximum-6-year-imprisonment limit, the categorical exclusions including OWI/violent crimes/sex offenses/firearms, and the substantial discretionary nature of the court's determination — make Wisconsin one of the most restrictive state expungement frameworks. The substantive effect is also limited compared to other states (WCCA/CCAP removal but no DOJ repository removal, no conviction vacatur, underlying facts available for subsequent sentencing per State v. Leitner). The work for Wisconsin defendants is in identifying expungement eligibility BEFORE sentencing through substantial pre-sentencing planning, engaging qualified Wisconsin criminal defense counsel familiar with §973.015 and the Matasek precedent, presenting substantial benefit/harm balance arguments at sentencing including detailed rehabilitation evidence and substantial employment/educational planning, getting court ruling on record at sentencing to preserve appellate protection, successfully completing all sentence conditions including probation/restitution/treatment, and pursuing actual expungement after sentence completion through the procedural framework. For Wisconsin defendants who missed the substantial pre-sentencing window — substantially limited by the Matasek procedural trap — the substantial limited alternatives include Wisconsin governor pardon and other discretionary executive remedies. For Wisconsin defendants currently facing eligible offenses, the substantial pre-sentencing planning opportunity should be pursued aggressively given the substantial procedural restrictions and the substantial limited substantive effect of the framework — the substantial alternative being permanent WCCA/CCAP records that substantially affect employment, housing, and other opportunities throughout the defendant's life given the substantial limitations on retroactive relief under current Wisconsin law.