Published online on May 1, 2026 and in print on May 3, 2026.
Dane County court wrong to release police officer data
By Jim Palmer
A recent Dane County Circuit Court decision ordering the release of a statewide dataset identifying more than 16,000 current and former law enforcement officers is being framed as a victory for transparency.
But transparency, while essential to public trust, is not absolute. When taken too far—or applied without regard to real-world consequences—it can undermine the very public interests it is meant to serve.
That is the risk presented by this ruling.
At issue is not whether law enforcement should be accountable. It should be—and it is. Wisconsin already maintains systems to ensure that officers who engage in misconduct are investigated, disciplined, and, when appropriate, prevented from continuing in the profession. The public has a legitimate interest in that process.
But this decision goes well beyond accountability. It requires the creation and release of a centralized, easily searchable dataset containing officers’ names, dates of birth, and employment histories. That distinction matters. While individual pieces of this information may exist in scattered public records, compiling them into a single database fundamentally changes their nature—and their potential for misuse.
This is not a theoretical concern. In today’s digital environment, aggregated data can be quickly cross-referenced with other publicly available information to build detailed personal profiles. For law enforcement officers, that creates a roadmap not only to their professional history, but potentially to their homes, families, and personal lives. It increases the risk of harassment, doxxing, and worse. It also raises serious concerns about identity theft, as dates of birth are a key component of personal identification.
Supporters of the ruling argue that other states have released similar information without widespread harm. But the absence of documented harm is not proof that harm does not exist. Incidents of harassment or targeting are often underreported and difficult to trace back to a specific data source. More importantly, not all disclosures are the same. The scope, format, and level of detail in this dataset—including the inclusion of dates of birth—significantly increase the risk profile.
Courts are not required to wait for harm to occur before recognizing it. Wisconsin’s public records law has long required a balancing of interests: the public’s right to know weighed against the public’s interest in nondisclosure. That balancing test exists precisely because some disclosures, even if technically permissible, carry consequences that outweigh their benefits.
Here, those consequences are substantial.
The decision also comes at a time when law enforcement agencies across Wisconsin—and the nation—are struggling to recruit and retain qualified officers. Policing is already a demanding and often dangerous profession. Policies that increase personal risk or diminish privacy will only make it harder to attract individuals willing to serve their communities.
There is also a broader institutional concern. Wisconsin has established regulatory frameworks to address the very issue this dataset is purported to solve—so-called “wandering officers.” Certification, decertification, and reporting requirements exist to ensure that misconduct follows an officer’s record and is not ignored. Creating an external, publicly accessible database risks oversimplifying complex personnel histories and undermining those established processes.
Perhaps most importantly, this decision fails to account for the irreversible nature of data release. Once this information is made public in a centralized format, it cannot be recalled. It can be copied, redistributed, and repurposed indefinitely. Any harms that result will not be theoretical—they will be permanent.
Transparency is a cornerstone of democratic governance. But it must be applied with judgment and restraint. Not every piece of information that can be disclosed should be disclosed in every form.
A more balanced approach would recognize the public’s interest in accountability while protecting against unnecessary risk—whether by limiting the scope of the data, excluding sensitive identifiers like dates of birth, or ensuring that disclosures do not create new vulnerabilities.
The court’s decision did not strike that balance.
It is critical that a higher court take a closer look—not at the abstract value of transparency, but at the real-world consequences of this particular disclosure. The goal should not be less transparency, but smarter transparency—one that informs the public without putting those who serve it at unnecessary risk.
In this case, the line was crossed.
____________
Palmer is the executive director of the Wisconsin Professional Police Association.