Open Record: Punishment Enough

From the Fox 6 studios, this is Open Record. I'm Brian Polson. I'm joined by Fox 6's Bill Miston. Hello, Bill. Good morning. And we are welcomed once again by Contact 6's Jenna Sachs. Hello, Jenna. Hi, happy to be here. We are recording this episode on Thursday, July 9, 2026. It is one day after federal Judge Lynn Adelman decided not to send former Milwaukee County Judge Hannah Dugan to prison. A jury convicted her in December of obstructing a federal proceeding by ushering a criminal defendant out the back door in an attempt to evade ICE agents waiting in the hallway. We have a couple of our favorite expert guests today, including UWM Professor Emeritus Mordecai Lee and Jim Santel, former U.S. attorney. But Bill, Jenna and I are going to start with a peek inside Judge Adelman's courtroom and a little background on how we got here right after this. We are back here on Open Record. As always, federal court is a place cameras are not allowed, so our Bill Miston is our eyes and ears in the courtroom. And I want to talk about the sentencing and have you take us inside that room with you. But for viewers and listeners who don't know the background of Judge Dugan's case really quickly, bring us up to speed. What happened and how did we get here? Well, she was arrested. Well, let's go back even farther. A defendant was going to be appearing in her court in Milwaukee County in the Milwaukee County Courthouse in April of last year. And that person had previously been removed from the U.S. They did not have a legal status to be here. And so there was an ICE what's called an ICE administrative warrant for removal proceedings to be brought against this person. And so through just knowing this person's name and being able to search public records and ICE enforcement, immigration enforcement team knew that he was supposed to be appearing at a certain place at a certain time for Judge Hannah Dugan. A battery hearing, is that right? A misdemeanor battery case. And so victims were going to be there as well. It was just a, I think it was just a, the judicial system takes a while to play out, right? And it was just going to be, I believe, a scheduling or kind of early on in the case of let's figure out where things are. Well, at one point, courthouse staff and other people that work there, whether they work for the courts themselves or other attorneys, became aware that there were some people in the hallway that stuck out like a sore thumb. The law enforcement agents, and we saw video and pictures of them, they looked like cops. They're undercover, but you could tell. Yes. And so there was a hubbub that was going on about who was there and what was going on. And eventually word got into Judge Hannah Dugan's court from, I believe some attorneys and then got word to her that there was federal agents outside. And so that is kind of what started these series of events. We don't know whether Hannah Dugan knew that they were there for this particular defendant. It's unclear if she had ever looked at the administrative warrant and read it or they had said his name. Yeah, it looks like they told her they had one and she just kind of said, you need to go down there and talk to the chief judge. And so on the floor that Judge Dugan's courtroom was, she's no longer there, but it was the sixth floor of the main courthouse. Chief Judge Carl Ashley's chambers, his office is down the hallway, almost immediately adjacent to Judge Dugan's courtroom. And so some of the agents were directed towards this office. While she's doing that, I believe she also had a fellow judge, Crisela Cervera, who she had grabbed from off the bench. They share back chambers and brought her out into the hallway, both of them wearing their judicial robes. When Crisela Cervera testified during the trial against Hannah Dugan, she said she didn't really know what was going on, but she went along and went with some of these agents as Judge Dugan went back into her courtroom, got back on the dais, and began having some conversations. Some of those conversations were recorded. Ultimately, what happens is that this defendant who was in court for a misdemeanor battery case- Eduardo Flores Ruiz, yeah. He is called up, or there's conversations being had with him and his attorney. Judge Dugan motions for them to come with her. They go to a jury door. This is a door that leads to where a jury would leave to, say, deliberate, or they may come in- At the back door of the courtroom, right? Going towards where the judge's chambers are. There's generally an office in there for the court reporter. They go into this hallway. There's a hallway that connects to other courtrooms, and then ultimately out to a keypadded door to the public hallway. This is on video, too, because there was a video in that hallway. There are security cameras in that hallway. What happens is that we see Judge Hannah Dugan direct or point Eduardo Flores Ruiz and his attorney this way. Now, there's also a door that leads to a public stairwell. The contention by the government is that Judge Hannah Dugan meant for them to take that stairwell and avoid that team in the hallway. Ultimately, Flores Ruiz goes back out into that hallway. While some agents are in Chief Judge Carl Ashley's office, other agents that are still in the hallway recognize and see Flores Ruiz. They don't try to make an arrest there. They let Flores Ruiz get on an elevator. One or two agents are on that elevator. Other agents are then trying to get downstairs to wherever they're going. Flores Ruiz gets outside of the courthouse. There's a brief chase after agents identify who they are. Flores Ruiz is arrested. This case has gotten a lot of attention given the politics of our country right now and various opinions about ICE. Has this story just been interesting for you to see the national attention come in? There have been a lot of different political figures weighing in on it. It was at a time that we knew that there were enforcement actions that were happening often, but a lot of times you don't see them. Previously, there were previous guidelines from the Immigration and Customs Enforcement about when and where these should be taking place, how they should be taking place. There's certain municipalities or government entities that say they will participate or not participate. There's this patchwork that already existed. Then, we have a new administration coming in with new guidelines about what to do. Then, we had started hearing and seeing videos being taken of people being arrested by presumably immigration enforcement agents across the city. It was at a time that there was heightened tension. Also, if you have a red car and you see another red car, you go, oh, that's a red car. The focus of it is more towards, hey, we know that this is going on. Now, maybe we're seeing more of it. This all happens. He ultimately gets arrested. We know that Hannah Dugan's charged ultimately and convicted by the way, a jury in December. Its verdict finds that she did help obstruct an ICE proceeding, which we can talk more about later. Ultimately, that happens in December. We're here in now July. She hasn't been sent. She's finally sentenced. There had been obviously an appeal. The defense tried to have that verdict overturned. Judge Adleman did not do that. That would have been a pretty extraordinary action for a judge to take. After all that time, the appeal's done. Now, here we are at sentencing. A lot of attention once again on what's going to happen. She's been convicted. You have a sitting judge who is now a former judge and is now a convicted felon. What's going to happen? Is the judge really going to send a former judge to prison? You were there in the courtroom yesterday, Bill. I know that there's so much attention, but we can't bring cameras into federal court. Can you paint a picture? From what I read from your notes, it was a full house. Tell me a little bit about what you saw in there. Yeah. Jim Santel, he can get into this a little bit more about the sentencing guidelines for federal statutes. Coming into this, we know that in short, the government was requesting prison time in the range of 15 months to 21 months, possibly lower, depending upon how Judge Adelman would have sliced some of those guidelines. Dugan's defense said, look, she's suffered enough. She's lost her job. She's lost her income. She's lost her standing in her community. We feel that she should just be given a sentence of time served the day or less that she was actually in custody and perhaps a fine. I can't remember if there was a request for a fine. Ultimately, at the end of the day, though, Judge Adelman said no prison time and I'm giving you a $5,000 fine that has to be paid immediately. I know a lot of times in criminal cases, we will hear, okay, no prison time, but there's going to be probation. Or a sentence in its state or some type of probation. Judge Adelman went through that because there's certain levels to which if a judge sentences someone that there's a reason for that. If someone is if a judge the alternative is probation to a prison time, what is the purpose of probation? Is it for rehabilitation? Is there any type of treatment needs or things like that? And so Judge Adelman went through that list of I don't find that there is a real need to if I give you a sentence or I probation that it would accomplish ultimately what the purposes of a sentence is. You know, sometimes at these sentencings, the defendant will speak. Did Judge Dugan speak at all? I'm very interested in what she had to say. Yeah. So to paint a picture of the courtroom packed house, the hearing was at 1115. I was actually in another courtroom for a plea hearing in a completely separate case and was trying to get through that before I could get over to Judge Dugan's or Judge Adelman's courtroom. Get there a little late. I'm the last person that can find a seat in this courtroom. There are 50 people in there already. I was the 51st. Squeeze in. This is a ceremonial courtroom in the federal courthouse. It's tall ceilings, wood paneled walls, very beautiful. And this is where the trial took place. And so there were a lot of people in that courtroom who were there in support of Judge Dugan. Two people ended up speaking on her behalf. One is Father Greg O'Mara, former Milwaukee County Assistant District Attorney years ago under the then District Attorney Michael McCann. He left being a prosecutor. He went into the priesthood and is now a professor of law at Marquette University. He spoke on Judge Dugan's behalf, speaking to the fact that, you know, she is a great community leader. She's very involved in the community. She's had to step away from that. She's had to step away from going to religious services, regularly scheduled religious services, because of the stigma or the attention that's brought to her when she would go. Then a longtime friend, former judge, former Supreme Court, state Supreme Court Justice Jeanine Geske also spoke on Judge Dugan's behalf and essentially kind of said the same thing. She's a longtime jurist. She's a great person. She's been defined by this now, and the repercussions to her professionally have been punishment enough. That phrase, punishment enough, I think that's really what this comes down to. The judge said it was. But you asked Jenna about Judge Dugan speaking herself. You've got those people speaking on her behalf. This really felt like the first time we got to hear Judge Dugan's feelings about this. I thought she had some pretty powerful statements. Yeah. One of the things that she talks about is that for years that she has tried to administer justice fairly, uphold the laws, constitution, the decorum of the court. She said that people have always come to the courthouse freely in precarious situations. These situations that were being faced by some defendants were previously unseen in state courts. She says that it was an honor of her life to be entrusted by Wisconsinites as their judge. Beyond the bench, she wanted to be present in the community. But she said since the government arrested her, she was forced to curb her community presence for her safety, privacy, and safety and privacy of her family. She said, quote, for more than a year, the circumstances of this prosecution have been politicized. I've been cast as a scofflaw by some and as a hero by others. I'm adding that in as some context there. I am neither. I am just a public servant who is trying to do my job. I thought that was the statement that stood out. I have been characterized as a scofflaw by some, a hero by others. I am neither. That really stood out as the statement. Don't make me your champion, but don't make me the villain. I was just trying to do my job as a public servant. Her defense team still in the sentencing memorandums and leading up to when they were asking Judge Adelman and their motions to reconsider the verdict that the jury brought was that she was still trying to, the argument is that she was still trying to navigate in a policy where it was unknown of what was the actual, like how do you manage if there are going to be immigration and customs enforcement teams in the courthouse and how to do that. And she did not, you know, apologize. She did not take blame. I mean, she was still very steadfast. This is who I am. And I was just trying to do my job. I want to get to our guests. So we are going to take a break. And when we come back, we're going to invite in UWM Professor Emeritus Mordecai Lee. We'll do that right after this. Welcome back to Open Record. Bill and I are welcoming to the podcast UWM Professor Emeritus Mordecai Lee. Thanks for being here as always. A pleasure. Just first right off the bat, your reaction to this verdict, is it what you expected? What do you make of it? It was what I expected in the sense that Judge Edelman, when he was a state senator, and I served with him, he was the epitome of an ACLU guy. He just believed in everything about maximum civil liberties, maximum rights for people who are defendants in criminal cases. He had to muffle it a little bit because he was a state senator from the areas of New Berlin and southwest suburbs. But he was always that kind of guy. And then he got confirmed as a judge. And when we saw in the trial, and I like Bill's description of the atmosphere, he was really trying to be very moderate, very straight down the middle, very neutral. Once I ran into him at a social event, and we were sort of trading gossip, and I said, how are things going? And he said that a third judge, who he knew, was constantly being overturned by the Court of Appeals in Chicago. And he said it in the context of, if you're overturned by the Court of Appeals, you're a lousy judge. You're getting a failed grade. And so what he was conveying to me is that he never wanted to be overruled, or at least he wanted to minimize being overturned by the Court of Appeals. So I think in the conduct of the case, he was right down the middle, very conservative. I think he gave the defense absolutely every opportunity to make their case, even more than you would expect in a normal criminal trial. But then, now we were at the sentencing, and you might say that after this very neutral presiding style, he sort of came out as more of the guy that he is. We can describe some judges as tough on crime, soft on crime, liberal, conservative. He really came out, I think the sentence was where he said that her behavior was a sentiment that was widely shared. Now, you can almost hear the silent adjective following that, that I share. In other words, he was validating what she did. And then he just really sort of gave her off with almost nothing. You guys have already covered it. $5,000 is really not that much. Jail time, prison time, excuse me, would have been somewhere between a year, a year and a half. You know, when I hear the line about, oh, she suffered enough, that's the line that's used against white collar, white defendants. In other words, oh, they lost their standing, their middle class standing, and really now they lost their job, and isn't that enough suffering? Well, you would never hear that said about a minority defendant engaged in a violent crime. Oh, he suffered enough. In fairness, this wasn't a violent crime, and this was a pretty unusual case, right? This is one where I think a lot of observers said, I don't know that we've ever really been through this before. She clearly violated the norms of a judge, and she really tried to minimize her behavior in her statement. After all, when a judge is hearing a statement before sentencing, what a judge is listening for, did the person acknowledge their responsibility? Did they apologize? Is there remorse? Yes. Is there remorse? And sometimes you'll hear a judge say, the sentence I'm giving you includes the fact that there's no remorse and no acknowledgement of your guilt, even though you were found guilty by a jury. And okay, as Edelman said, this wasn't public corruption, but this was a misuse of judicial power. For her to claim that she had judicial immunity, when she stepped down from the dais, she stepped out of her courtroom, she stepped into a public area where she had no power, and her defense still says she was eligible for courtroom judicial immunity. I think when you raise the question of how much did she lose, is this punishment enough? Someone could look at this and say, for sure, she lost her ability to continue to be a judge, maybe lost her ability to continue to be a lawyer. And so that is a pretty significant loss in terms of what she suffered. She suffered the public shaming by the Trump administration, having her in handcuffs put out by the FBI director. So there's one view of that, but I am hearing you say a lot of what I'm seeing in the comments on our social media, people saying this was a slap on the wrist, this was nothing, the judge got off the hook. Do you think there is, in the end when someone sees, I mean, I actually looked up $5,000 fine, that's what an NFL player gets for throwing a football in the stands. So the fine is nothing. Effectively, the punishment in terms of a sentence is nothing. The judge is saying you've suffered enough. I'm hearing you sound like you aligning with some of those comments that this feels like it was a complete letting off of the hook. I come from the school that believes that white-collar crime should be treated as badly as violent criminal behavior. And that for us to say that white-collar crime, they don't have to be in jail, they don't have to be in prison, they don't have to be on parole. I think that that's a double standard of society. That somehow if you're in the middle class, that you don't have to suffer the same as if you engaged in a violent crime. I do think we've certainly, I mean, this did not happen in a political vacuum, right? Obviously, the Trump administration was making an example of Judge Duggan. And I know you said that you sort of heard Judge Edelman maybe letting his own sort of feelings fly here a little bit. Is that what this comes down to is you were a victim of a political prosecution, and so that's why I think you've suffered enough? Well, there's no doubt in his statement where he said, what you did is a sentiment that's widely shared. There's no doubt where he was standing and what he wanted to do. And so in this case, I don't think he'd get overturned on a sentence. And I liked Bill's comment when he summarized how Judge Edelman defended not doing this and not doing that. Prison is for deterrence. And I finally just pulled that up. He says that it's hard to see how adding any prison time to what happened to her being arrested at work, brought to court, charged, convicted, would be a deterrence. And he said that he doubts anyone familiar with Duggan's arrest and prosecution that the conviction affirms no one is above the law. And said that, again, prison is for deterrence, sees no realistic possibility, she'll re-offend because this case, he said, was an outlier unlike most obstruction cases. And that the manner that she was charged had an impact on the guidelines as was outlined by the defendant's sentencing memorandum. And as an alternative to a prison time is probation. And Judge Edelman said she has no correctional needs to be addressed by probation, no need for supervision by a probation officer to protect the public. And those were his reasonings for how is this different? He said that he doubts that there are any judges in the country that have no idea about this case. And so he said that it was likely enough of a deterrence if there were judges that wanted to try and do the same to know that the government would be ready and willing to go after them for obstructing some type of proceeding. I think when a judge obstructs justice, that's a big deal and does not need to be treated with kid gloves and deserves a punishment. So Bill talks about deterrent, Judge Edelman talks about deterrence, obviously deterrence, not just for the defendant, but for others. But there's also the question of personal gain, that she didn't do this for her own personal gain. But is there personal gain when it is for your own political reasons? If she had a political reason saying, I want to thumb my nose at ICE, I want to get back at those guys because I don't like they're in my courthouse, is doing that a form of personal gain? Brian, you've so nailed it. This is the kernel of the case, that she had a motivation, went against her author's agenda, and to put her political opinions above everything else. And when the sentencing judge, in a sense, agreed with her, because there's a sentiment, probably half of Milwaukeeans applauded her for doing it, the other half criticized her, taking a position on a political issue that is totally separate from what the law is. And a judge should be focused on the law. So as far as we know now, she is obviously only getting the $5,000 fine, no prison, but she's still going to appeal. And Bill, I know you were there. Some people hear that and they go, why would she appeal? How could she ask for anything better? But it's not the sentence she's appealing, right? It's the conviction. It's the conviction. And it goes back to when the jury reached its split verdict. There were several questions during deliberations that the jury had. Remember, Judge Dugan was charged with misdemeanor charge of helping Flores Ruiz evade arrest. The jury acquitted her on that, but there were several questions related to that. And then there were several questions the jury had related to the felony charge of obstructing a federal or government proceeding. And there were instructions that Judge Adelman gave the jury in both instances. And when the jury reached a split verdict, the stance of her defense team was, okay, we appreciate the jury finding her not guilty on this misdemeanor charge, but how can you have one, if not the other? And we feel that Judge Adelman's instructions were in error. Her team asked Judge Adelman to reconsider the jury's verdict, conviction. He denied that. They appealed after a ruling in another appellate circuit in Virginia this past spring as it related to the word proceedings and ICE warrants, which are nonjudicial warrants. I had to get found that that is not a proceeding. And that is not a proceeding. And so Dugan's defense team asked Judge Adelman to reconsider under those grounds, and he denied that. And Jim, I think, could probably speak to this better. But ultimately, I don't think Adelman wanted to rock the boat with that, because if he were to, it could be appealed by the government. It would be pretty extraordinary to overturn a jury verdict. I want to get to our next guest, but I just want to leave with this, Mordecai. What do you think is the takeaway? What is the big picture that comes out of this case now? The big picture is that anybody who holds a public office needs to separate their public office from their political view. Now, when we elect a legislator, a state senator, state representative, U.S. senator, we want them to express their political views because they're making laws. But once the law is made, then all the other public officials down the line in the judicial branch must be neutral and can't let their political values supersede the law itself. Seems like we're seeing less and less of that neutrality as things go forward. But again, Professor Lee, thank you for being with us once again. We're going to take a break. When we come back, we will have former U.S. attorney Jim Santel here on Open Record. That's right after this. We are back on Open Record, and we want to welcome Jim Santel, former U.S. attorney, once again here to the podcast. Thank you for being here with us this morning. I am honored and delighted once again to spend some time and good discussion with you, as always. So you were watching, well, I guess you weren't watching the verdict unless you were there in person, but you've certainly heard the verdict. What do you make of it, especially as a former federal prosecutor? Sure. So I think, as Mordecai indicated in your past segment, as many people looked at this, putting aside how you feel about the resolution here, I don't think there was much surprise even going into this. People on all sides, if you will, of the political aisle, of the judicial aisle, the legal aisle, predicted that Judge Adelman would not impose a sentence of any imprisonment, any detention, and perhaps a small fine. So the result here was not a surprise to virtually anybody. And it's also significant, as you also talked with Mordecai about, that this word, the D word, the deterrence word, came up largely. And that was the basis upon which, from my perspective, Judge Adelman decided this case. Whenever you have a criminal matter, you always think about deterrence. Is there a specific deterrence as to the individual who is on trial, who is the focus of the prosecution? And then there's general deterrence. Those are the two kinds. As to this particular defendant, well, she's no longer a judge, and so no need to deter her further. Highly unlikely, if not actually practically impossible, for her to engage in this conduct a second time. And secondarily, the general deterrence, well, I suppose you could send messages generally to the judiciary out there that you shouldn't be doing this, but even that, a very limited deterrent impact. Unlike situations of violent crime, other white-collar crimes, where you can send big messages, not only to the targeted defendant, but also the community at large about the reasons why we're doing this prosecution, and sending that message that if you do this, the same kind of thing, if you're thinking of robbing a bank, of evading your taxes, importing contraband, if you're doing anything like that, you may suffer the same consequence. That is a big aspect of criminal prosecution, investigation, and resolution that plainly was not present here. Jim, Judge Adleman also talked a bit about the judge's life, her character, political contributions. Why does that matter? Why was that mentioned? Because it should always be a part of any judicial review of what a judge is about to do. He made mention a number of times to the pre-sentence report. That is a report, again, not in the public record, but all the parties had access to it, that describes the judge's background. That's true of any defendant. The specific offense conduct in which she engaged, according to the jury. All kinds of things that should be related to the judge's decision, far beyond things just in the trial, which focuses upon the offense conduct, and background, and history, and who this person is. You think about our system in America, which, again, we all embrace, even though it's imperfect and sometimes does let us down. That's exactly what you want a judge to do, right? To take a look at who this person is and make a decision based upon the specific facts of the case, certainly the underlying conduct, but also what is right to do. And does it make sense, for example, to send a 20-year-old who may have engaged in a violent crime, nonetheless, to change her or his life for the next 20 or 30 years, when, in fact, it may be a first offense? All those kinds of things can be involved in the determination. Here, you've got someone who has had a long and, frankly, very illustrious career, both as a lawyer and as a judge, for almost 10 years on the bench. That's worth something, and that's worth considering. That's what the judge was saying. And he also says, as you indicated before in your prior segment, that there is an aspect of this where she has already paid the price, if you will. Those are not his words, but the way in which he regarded this. All of that, all of that can be a part of a judge's consideration and should be in our system. You know, talk about the big picture that this fits within. And while what Judge Dugan was convicted of doing is highly unusual, the circumstances at the time were pretty unusual, because for many years ICE wasn't making arrests in courthouses, at least not very frequently. And then the Trump administration comes in and changes the guidance and says it's not just cases of national security or imminent threats to life and safety, but all sorts of other broader categories of situations can lead to a courthouse arrest. And that's what happened here. Just recently, in June, I think it was, last month, a federal judge in California vacated the Trump policy on making courthouse arrests. So that is something that has changed since Hannah Dugan's arrest. Tell us from your point of view, especially as a former federal prosecutor, how does that sort of change the environment that all of this is happening within? Right. And that environment includes the judge in California, but it's happening around the country, right? As judges are indicating, Mordecai just made reference to this as well, as judges are figuring out what do we do in our particular venue, in our courthouse when this happens? And what all of them are doing, whether you're a judge reviewing the policies, the memorandums, obviously, we know that the chief judge here in Milwaukee, Carl Ashley, again, has put forth a memorandum now that has some policies, not without controversy. All those kinds of things are an attempt to balance two significant considerations. And they're not competing. Both of them need to exist in the same environment. So here's my perspective on the law enforcement aspect of this. Yes, indeed. Again, putting aside the basis upon which to arrest someone, you can have a warrant, a judicial warrant. That's part of my background. You went to a judge and got authorization, probable cause to go and arrest someone. And our system depends fundamentally upon the notion that, yes, indeed, officers of the law, whether they're state or local or federal, should have, when they're given that authorization, the capacity under the appropriate circumstances to execute on a warrant like that. A judge, a court has said you can do that. There's probable cause. And so we need for the integrity of the system to enable them to do just that. On the other side, again, it's not inconsistent with it, but it's a co-terminus, if you will, consideration. You also have the sanctity, the safety, and the security of the courtroom. That's what we heard a lot about during the course of the trial and during the sentencing as well. You want to make certain that people who are there in that courthouse are not themselves exposed to some sort of danger. We know in the end that this particular defendant, not Hannah Dugan, but the one that was appearing in front of her, ends up being arrested after a chase along 9th Street. They're outside the courthouse. That is not what you want to have happen, right? And that is not a secure circumstance. You want to do these in the easiest way. This is plainly a confrontational type of event. But you want to ensure that people are safe and secure, not only the defendant who's being arrested, but the community at large. And so you want to ensure that inside that courtroom, the courthouse, the things that need to happen there, the administration of justice, witnesses are present there, jurors are present there. They're trying to figure out what the facts are, what the law is. Lawyers are present there to argue their cases. There's got to be some sanctity to that as well. And Brian, your question goes to how do you balance those two considerations? Law enforcement has a right, an option, an obligation to execute on its warrants, but not under every single circumstance. You've got to balance that with where you're doing it, how you're doing it, and that's what judges are trying to wrestle with right now. Well, there's another element to that, which is deterrence of people coming to the courthouse, because I know in the case of the California judge's ruling, he was focusing mostly on immigration court cases. So you would have people coming to court over immigration issues and then being arrested right after their hearing by ICE agents. And the judges in that case, in that immigration court, were saying, we're seeing a huge decline in attendance because people say, what's the point of going and having my case heard if I'm going to get arrested anyway? So there is a question of how do you balance the safe place to make the arrest versus people feeling safe to come to court? And you do, and you want to make certain that only jurors, but as you said, especially Brian, you want to make certain that people who are coming, again, presumably voluntarily, whether it's for civil matters or criminal matters, administrative matters, whether they're there to get some advice from the Milwaukee Justice Center, for example, and just talk to a DA or talk to an investigator there in that complex, that criminal justice, civil justice complex there on MacArthur Square. You want to make certain that they come there because they can anticipate that their case will be heard. They'll get the remedy, maybe not that they want perfectly, but some sense of engagement in the process. If that is being, and yes, I'll use the word chilled, if your concern is exactly what you just said, Brian, which is I'm not going there because I'm going to end up in prison, that too needs to be better consideration. And how do you balance that interest in making certain that people do not default on their obligations to show up, that they are abiding by court orders to do so against their own interests in not ending up in prison and, or at least in detention for some limited period of time? All of that, all of that, that's the reason why these orders and especially the policies that are being put together, this is not a two or three sentence type memorandum. This is lots of contingencies and ultimately depends upon people in all of these settings, whether you're a judge, whether a court bailiff, whether you're the security, there's sheriff's department in the Milwaukee County courthouse, the federal courthouse, attorneys and people responsible all required to do their part and exercise what? Common sense and good judgment and making certain that we balance those things in the practical circumstances, knowing that their decisions are probably going to be reviewed post event itself. And knowing that they've got some obligations too, in support of the rule of law. Well, I wish we had more time with you because it's always fun to talk, Jim, but we are so grateful to have your expertise and your availability. Thank you for being here once again on Open Record. Always a pleasure. Always an honor. We'll talk with you next time. I suspect there'll be more to talk about, will there not? Absolutely. All right. Thank you, Jim. With that, we will go off the record right after this. And it is time for us to go off the record. This is the part of the podcast where we get a little more casual, have a little fun by answering a question that we have not prepared for. Sarah Smith, former Open Record co-host, still supplying me with questions, has this one. And let's see where this goes. It was, how long can water sit in a bottle or a cup or a glass before you dump it and get fresh water? I'm assuming there's no cap, not like in a mug. Well, I don't know. Maybe that's a secondary part of the question. What if it's just in a closed water bottle? How long can it stay there? Okay. So I went to summer camp as a kid. I would walk across camp to the pump, fill it up, and I would carry that water bottle. Up there both ways. Yeah, definitely. I really had to work that pump. But it was, I drank it for a few days afterward. But if I have a cup sitting in my house, dust could fall in it, and that's kind of gross. So maybe, I don't know, temperature. I wouldn't. Okay. One day. Bill? Is this something that other people think about? I don't even think about it. Do you just drink it later? I mean, if it's there and I'm thirsty, and sure, fine. I mean, like if it doesn't have stuff floating in it. Well, that's where I run into it. Like if it was an open coffee mug of water, and I came back the next day, I'd be worried about dust and things. So that would seem gross. But if it was, here's what's weird, this doesn't make any sense. If it's coffee, I won't drink it the next day, but I'll drink cold coffee that was warm earlier. Because you do not put cream in it or anything? I don't. Yeah, right. I just drink black coffee. So sometimes I get busy, and the heat has gone away, and it's cold. And I'm like, well, it's still coffee. And I just, it's like cold brew now. You need it for, you're not drinking it at that point for the flavor. You're drinking it for the drug. Well, yes. Although I kind of, I actually like cold coffee too. It doesn't taste terrible to me. I love cold coffee. For me, it's more about the clutter. I'm famous in my family for, if you leave it out, don't expect it to be there when you come back. I've cleaned it up. What about water bottles? Like plastic water bottles? So I'll have, I take a water bottle with me. I prefer to keep plastic out of landfills. Okay, well, so I am ruining the environment, but I have a plastic water bottle in the car. It's half full of water. It has the cap on. Yeah. And I come back in a couple of days. It's been in the heat a couple of times. It's cooled back down. Do you still drink that? It depends. I mean, if it's warm, no. I mean, you're not going to die. How desperate are you? How thirsty are you? My only concern when that happens is, did somebody throw something in it that I can't see? You know what I mean? I don't know. Who would be going into your car unscrewing a cap of the water bottle that is half open? I don't know. If I have a passenger and they decided that usually you'd see. Who are you letting into your car? What if they spit in it? I don't know. Who are you letting into your car that would spit into a half-used water bottle and then you're... I have step-sons. They might have. I don't know. Do you know what is kind of gross today is a lot of water bottles have these straws on the inside, and those get kind of yucky after a few days. Oh, like a built-in straw kind of thing. You take it out and you wash it separately with like a little. And they get moldy and gross. That's gross. I've seen people take out their water bottles and the straw inside is like yellowing. Or black. And that's gross. So that would be the reason I would clean out the water bottle every day because of that straw. You're all looking at me. No, no, no. I'm actually in full agreement. Any kind of permanent plastic straws, I'm always paranoid about what's inside them. Sure. Especially, so I don't like the ones that are solid colors, because then you may not I'd say people just go back to before everyone started carrying around more reasonable sized water bottles and go back to, remember the old Coleman cooler bottles? Just a jug. The jug. Yeah. Like for soccer practice. Yeah, soccer practice. Exactly. Like I'm thinking back to soccer practice when I, you know, worked construction and landscaping was you'd bring one or two of those with you and that was the water you drank for the day. It's hard to tell the difference now. It's like a Coleman water cooler with a handle. My step-sons have these giant, these big fat things and we have a water filter on our sink that's very slow. So when they, they'll just take the jug, sit it under there, turn the sink on and walk away for 10 minutes because it takes forever to fill that thing up. Here's the question. How many different iterations of water bottles do you both now have in your home that you don't use anymore? I actually just went through the cabinet and got rid of a ton of water bottles. Can you come do that to our house? We have a double cabinet that is full of coffee mugs and water bottles. Most people probably do, right? I mean, because it's like the big Coleman jugs, you know, I went to my parents and I grabbed one or two because I'm like, I want to have these with me because I will use them. Then you have like sports water bottles that you might use on a bicycle. You have your Nalgene bottles. You have your giveaway bottles. Also, sometimes those giveaway bottles are just junk. They really are. We have a lot of junk ones, but they have some sentimentality to them or whatever it is. No one wants to get rid of them. I would love you to come clean them out. I wish I could talk more about it, but that's how I'm going to leave it. We need to clean out our water bottle bin. We will wrap things up and we come right back after this. That's all the time we have this week on Open Record. If you have something you'd like us to investigate, send us an email to fox6investigators at fox.com. Jenna, Bill, I'm Brian. That's all we've got. We'll see you next week.