Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 301.132 (2026)
Honesty testing of sex offenders
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
301.132(1)(c)(c) “Sex offender” means a person in the custody of the department who meets any of the criteria specified in s. 301.45 (1g).
301.132(2)(2) The department may require a sex offender to submit to a lie detector test when directed to do so by the department. The department may require submission to a lie detector test under this subsection as part of a sex offender’s correctional programming or care and treatment, as a condition of a sex offender’s probation, parole or extended supervision, or both as part of a sex offender’s correctional programming or care and treatment and as a condition of the sex offender’s probation, parole or extended supervision.
301.132(3)(3) The department shall promulgate rules establishing a lie detector test program for sex offenders. The rules shall provide for assessment of fees upon sex offenders to partially offset the costs of the program.
301.132 Cross-referenceCross-reference: See also ss. DOC 332.015, 332.15, 332.16, 332.17, and 332.18, Wis. adm. code.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2003–2023 · leading case: State v. Spaeth, 2012 WI 95 (Wis. 2012).
State v. Spaeth, 2012 WI 95 (Wis. 2012). “The Wisconsin Department of Corrections (DOC) has statutory authority under Wis. Stat. § 301.132 to require sex offenders to submit to lie detector tests while they are on parole, probation, or extended supervision.”
State v. Jordan Alexander Lickes, 2021 WI 60 (Wis. 2021). “For example, under Wis. Stat. § 301.132 (2) DOC may require sex offenders to submit to a "lie detector test" as part of DOC's "conditions of probation.”
State v. Adam W. Vice, 2021 WI 63 (Wis. 2021). “It is often the case that disclosures of these types of offenses only occur after a failed polygraph examination.”
State v. Kandutsch, 2011 WI 78 (Wis. 2011). “"); and Wis. Stat. § 301.132 (2) ("The department may require a sex offender to submit to a lie detector test when directed to do so by the department.”
Jeremy Armstrong v. Daniel Bertrand, Warden, 336 F.3d 620 (7th Cir. 2003). “2d 628 (1981), in which the Wisconsin Supreme Court established a per se ban on polygraph evidence in criminal cases, and by Wis. Stat. § 301.132 , 1 which arguably overruled Dean in part by specifically authorizing the use of polygraph tests of convicted sex offenders by the…”
Armstrong, Jeremy v. Bertrand, Daniel (7th Cir. 2003). “Armstrong argues that Scheffer’s declaration that each state has the authority to determine the use of polygraph tests within the state, combined with Wisconsin’s argu- able partial statutory overruling of Dean, somehow re- quired the trial court here to accept Armstrong’s…”
Kenneth Risch v. Brian Hayes (Wis. Ct. App. 2021). “” ¶3 As a result of Risch’s admissions, he was taken into custody and his home was searched. Several laptop computers and numerous memory cards were 1 The Department of Corrections (DOC) has statutory authority to require sex offenders to submit to polygraph tests while they are…”
Young v. Wisconsin Dep't of Corr. Div. of Cmty. Corr. (E.D. Wis. 2023). “§ 301.132 (2) (“The department may require a sex offender to submit to a lie detector test when directed to do so by the department .”
— Wis. Stat. § 301.132(2) — 2 cases
State v. Jordan Alexander Lickes, 2021 WI 60 (Wis. 2021). “For example, under Wis. Stat. § 301.132 (2) DOC may require sex offenders to submit to a "lie detector test" as part of DOC's "conditions of probation.”
Kenneth Risch v. Brian Hayes (Wis. Ct. App. 2021). “” ¶3 As a result of Risch’s admissions, he was taken into custody and his home was searched. Several laptop computers and numerous memory cards were 1 The Department of Corrections (DOC) has statutory authority to require sex offenders to submit to polygraph tests while they are…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.