The Wisconsin Transparency Project
MADISON, Wis. — A Dane County judge has ordered the Wisconsin Department of Justice to release a long-withheld list of roughly 16,000 law enforcement officers across the state, delivering a major victory for government transparency advocates and open-records enforcement.
In a ruling issued April 28, 2026, Circuit Court Judge Rhonda Lanford rejected the DOJ’s refusal to release the data, finding the agency improperly denied the request and failed to follow Wisconsin’s strong presumption in favor of public access to records.
The lawsuit was brought by the Invisible Institute and The Badger Project, two investigative journalism organizations seeking comprehensive data on certified law enforcement officers, including names, employment history, and certification details.
Attorney Tom Kamenick, a longtime open-records advocate who has represented Kenosha County Eye in multiple legal matters, played a central role in the case through the Wisconsin Transparency Project.
The court found the DOJ’s denial was not based on a proper, case-by-case legal analysis, but instead amounted to a broad, automatic refusal.
“The DOJ has not met its burden to show that this is an ‘exceptional case’ warranting nondisclosure,” Lanford wrote, emphasizing that Wisconsin law requires a strong presumption of openness.
Blanket Denial Rejected
At the heart of the ruling was the court’s conclusion that the DOJ applied what amounted to a blanket policy of denying requests for a full statewide officer list—something Wisconsin law does not allow.
Under the state’s open records law, agencies must weigh public interest in disclosure against any claimed need for secrecy on a case-by-case basis. The judge found the DOJ failed to do that.
Instead, the agency relied on generalized concerns about officer safety, undercover operations, and privacy—arguments the court found too broad to overcome the public’s right to know.
The court noted that law enforcement officers, by the nature of their role, are subject to heightened public scrutiny.
Safety Arguments Didn’t Hold Up
The DOJ argued that releasing the list could expose undercover officers or put officers and their families at risk. But the court rejected those claims as speculative and unsupported by specific evidence.
The agency also claimed it lacked sufficient information to identify which officers might be at risk if their identities were disclosed. The judge found that reasoning insufficient to justify withholding the entire dataset.
The ruling emphasized that hypothetical concerns are not enough to overcome Wisconsin’s open records law.
What Was Being Sought
The records request, originally submitted in November 2023, sought detailed data on all certified officers in Wisconsin, including identifying information and employment history.
The DOJ partially complied by releasing limited categories of officers—such as those decertified or flagged for misconduct—but refused to provide a complete list.
That refusal ultimately led to the lawsuit filed in May 2024.
A Significant Transparency Win
The decision marks one of the most significant open-records rulings in Wisconsin in recent years, with broad implications for how law enforcement data is handled statewide.
Transparency advocates have long argued that access to officer data is essential for identifying misconduct, tracking “wandering officers” who move between departments, and holding agencies accountable.
The court agreed that the public interest in disclosure is particularly strong when it comes to law enforcement.
What Happens Next
The ruling is a final order for purposes of appeal, meaning the DOJ could challenge the decision in a higher court.
If upheld, the decision would force the state to release a comprehensive list of certified officers—something Wisconsin has historically resisted while many other states already provide similar data.
For Kamenick, whose legal work has frequently centered on forcing government transparency, the ruling represents another high-profile victory in the ongoing fight over public records access.
And for journalists across Wisconsin, including Kenosha County Eye, it could open the door to a level of law enforcement transparency that has long been out of reach.
8 Responses
Safety of the officers should be number one. Does this list include their addresses? Should they be given time to scrub there public foot print. (addresses etc ).
Even our fearless leader Kevin takes measures to protect his address from public disclosure. Why? Security and to protect his family.
Time to research and publish this Tom Kenanick’s home address and petition outside his home.
Our law enforcement deserves much better than some jackass judge in Dane County thinks.
What would someone do if they were to find out records were possibly scrubbed?
And just say, it was an order given by someone like a former superior.
Laws for thee, but not for me! Finally someone is doing something about transparency in our law enforcement. No one is above the law! Thank you Tom and Kevin for exposing this and fighting for us!
This is bullshit. This just gives the criminals a published list of leos to hunt and harass.
Exactly what “identifying information,” is going to be released? I’ve seen posts claiming dates of birth and addresses are included. If it’s name and certifications, I can understand that. But if it includes addresses and dates of birth that’s definitely endangering the safety of officers and opening them up to identify theft as well.
I get all the pros and cons, both with good arguments. But in this day and age, anyone with a bit of digital savvy and AI can find damn near anything. We’ve all been digitized for years, I see this as a tempest in a teapot.
This is an interesting case. CCAP will be busy investigating every cop. Many resignations are coming.
I understand transparency, but as the daughter of a former law enforcement officer (of 29 years) identifying information needs to be very limited and release of such documented. Addresses, contact information, etc. can put the family at risk. As a teen in the 70’s, we received threatening phone calls; when life was safer and simpler with the good ole phone book. The family and officer deserve to be safe and privacy during off-duty time. Sorry, but I see this potentially being problematic at this early face value.