Last updated: September 2026
At the August 13, 2026 Price County Law Enforcement Committee meeting, a Medford woman stood at the public comment podium and handed the committee a formal citizen complaint and sworn affidavit requesting the felony prosecution of a Price County investigator. The complaint, filed by Brittany Volkman, alleges that Investigator Dylan Schiller leaked unredacted internal police intelligence during the sheriff’s election, broadcast the name of an active victim of an armed interstate abduction, and admitted in his own written narrative to committing what she described as a “wireless physical assault” on a survivor of police sexual misconduct.
Volkman asked that her comment be entered into the meeting minutes word for word. She then invoked the committee’s own 1990 precedent, when the committee recommended terminating a deputy for off-duty political speech, a decision upheld all the way to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in 1993, to argue that the same standard should apply to Schiller’s on-duty actions.
What the complaint alleges
Volkman, who identified herself as the founder of United Together Against Violence (U.T.A.V.), laid out three specific allegations against Investigator Schiller:
- Leaked intelligence during the election. She said Schiller used his personal social media account during a public event regarding the sheriff’s election to publish a paragraph of what she described as internal police department intelligence, unredacted.
- Broadcast a victim’s name. She alleged Schiller posted the name of an active victim of an armed interstate abduction, a pregnant survivor of violence, in an effort to score a political point, in what she called an egregious violation of the survivor’s constitutional rights.
- Admitted assault in a written narrative. She said that in a single criminal complaint from State v. Connor Newman, Schiller explicitly admits in his own written narrative to committing a “wireless physical assault” on a survivor of police sexual misconduct.
Volkman requested the felony prosecution of Schiller and demanded the documents be entered into the official meeting minutes. Committee members asked for clarification on the dates of the alleged conduct; the record shows the matter was acknowledged but not resolved at the meeting.
A note on the language used
The phrase “wireless physical assault” is not a standard term in Wisconsin criminal law or the state statutes. It appears in the complaint as Volkman described it at the meeting. We are reporting the phrase as it was used, not as a legal classification. If the matter is referred for review, the district attorney’s office would determine what, if any, charge the underlying conduct could support.
Important context: these are allegations, not findings
It is essential to be clear about what this is and is not. The complaint is a citizen’s sworn affidavit requesting prosecution. It is not a charging decision, a conviction, or a finding of wrongdoing. No law enforcement agency has confirmed the allegations, and Investigator Schiller has not been charged with a crime. The committee took no action on the complaint at the August 13 meeting.
Price County has not publicly responded to the complaint. This article reports that a formal complaint was filed and what it alleges; it does not assert that the allegations are true.
The woman behind the complaint
Volkman is the founder and executive director of United Together Against Violence (U.T.A.V.), a group whose stated mission is exposing corruption in Wisconsin’s 9th Judicial District. Her Substack, Lena V (utav.substack.com), has published a series of investigative reports on Price County law enforcement and the courts, including a detailed analysis of the same August 13 Law Enforcement Committee meeting.
It is worth distinguishing between two kinds of material here. The complaint itself, and the meeting transcript, are official records: the transcript is the county’s own recording of the August 13 meeting, and the complaint was filed with the committee. Volkman’s Substack, by contrast, is her own publication, and its claims about the broader Brylski case and the county’s handling of records are her assertions, not official findings. We have not independently verified those Substack claims.
Her Substack has also documented a separate civil case, John J. Brylski v. Brian Schmidt & Robert M. Mihelich (Case No. 2026CV000108), an intentional tort lawsuit filed August 12, 2026 against Price County Sheriff Brian Schmidt and an attorney. In that case, Volkman has alleged that Clerk of Circuit Court Lisa Walcisak placed an administrative blockade on public case documents, citing pending motions to seal. The sheriff’s office and county have not publicly commented on those allegations either.
A district attorney’s office under strain
The same August 13 meeting offered a window into why a formal complaint like this may take time to work through the system. District Attorney Alexis Nash, in office only four months, reported that her two-attorney office is carrying a heavy load:
- 250 cases pending review, referred by law enforcement but not yet evaluated for charges
- 230 active filed cases, with Nash personally handling 191 (82 felonies, 109 misdemeanors) and Assistant DA Ian Mickelson handling 39
- 14 felony OWIs actively being litigated
- Roughly 50 cases filed in the prior 60 days, as the office works to convert the pending pile into active litigation
Nash also flagged that open records requests and appellate work frequently pull her away from case review, a point that resonates with the open records dispute in the Brylski case.
Open records requests are surging
At the same meeting, the sheriff’s office reported a sharp rise in open records requests: 195 in 2024, 322 in 2025, and 220 already in 2026 year-to-date. Staff time spent on redactions has reached roughly 7,000 minutes, and one request required an employee to review more than 21 hours of video. The county is exploring ways to manage the requests more efficiently.
What happens next
The formal complaint against Investigator Schiller now sits with the county. Whether it is referred to the district attorney’s office, an outside agency, or the committee for further review remains to be seen. Given the DA’s office is already stretched thin, any investigation would add to an existing backlog.
This is a developing story. Price County has not issued a public response to the complaint, and no charges have been filed. We will update this article as the county responds or the matter moves forward.
See also: our guide to free camping in Wisconsin
See also: our guide to Price County public records
See also: our weekend weather preview
Sources
- Price County Law Enforcement Committee meeting transcript, August 13, 2026 (full meeting, including Volkman’s public comment)
- Price County Law Enforcement Committee meeting, August 13, 2026 (video: Price County WI Government)