Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 302.02 (2026)
Jurisdiction and extent of state correctional institutions
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
302.02(1m)(1m) Institutions located within the state. Every activity conducted under the jurisdiction of and by any institution or facility listed under this section, wherever located, is a precinct of the prison, and each precinct is part of the institution. For all purposes of discipline and judicial proceedings all of the following apply:
302.02(1m)(a)(a) Waupun Correctional Institution. The Waupun Correctional Institution and its precincts are considered to be in Dodge County, and the Dodge County circuit court has jurisdiction of all crimes committed within the county.
302.02(1m)(b)(b) Green Bay Correctional Institution. The Green Bay Correctional Institution and its precincts are considered to be in Brown County, and the Brown County circuit court has jurisdiction of all crimes committed within the county.
302.02(1m)(c)(c) Taycheedah Correctional Institution. The Taycheedah Correctional Institution and its precincts are considered to be in Fond du Lac County, and the Fond du Lac County circuit court has jurisdiction of all crimes committed within the county.
302.02(1m)(d)(d) Correctional institutions under s. 301.16. The correctional institutions authorized under s. 301.16 and their precincts are considered to be in the county in which the institution is physically located, and that county’s circuit court has jurisdiction of all crimes committed within the county.
302.02(1m)(e)(e) Fox Lake Correctional Institution. The Fox Lake Correctional Institution and its precincts are considered to be in Dodge County, and the Dodge County circuit court has jurisdiction of all crimes committed within the county.
302.02(1m)(f)(f) Minimum security correctional institutions. The minimum security correctional institutions and their precincts, as to each inmate, are considered to be in the county in which the institution to which the inmate is assigned is located, and that county’s circuit court has jurisdiction of all crimes committed within the county.
302.02(1m)(g)(g) Kettle Moraine Correctional Institution. The Kettle Moraine Correctional Institution and its precincts are considered to be in Sheboygan County, and the Sheboygan County circuit court has jurisdiction of all crimes committed within the county.
302.02(1m)(h)(h) Dodge Correctional Institution. The Dodge Correctional Institution and its precincts are considered to be in Dodge County, and the Dodge County circuit court has jurisdiction of all crimes committed within the county.
302.02(1m)(i)(i) State-local shared correctional facilities. The state-local shared correctional facilities and their precincts are considered, as to each inmate, to be in the county in which the facility to which the inmate is assigned is located, and that county’s circuit court has jurisdiction over all crimes committed within the facility.
302.02(1m)(j)(j) Correctional institution; community residential confinement. The correctional institution under s. 301.046 (1) and its precincts are considered, as to each inmate, to be in the county in which the inmate is confined, and the courts of that county shall have jurisdiction of all crimes committed within the county.
302.02(1m)(k)(k) Correctional institution; intensive sanctions program. The correctional institution under s. 301.048 (4) (b) and its precincts are considered, as to each inmate, to be in the county in which the inmate is assigned, and that county’s circuit court has jurisdiction of all crimes committed within the county.
302.02(3t)(3t) Institutions located in other states. For all purposes of discipline and for judicial proceedings, each institution that is located in another state and authorized for use under s. 301.21 and its precincts are considered to be in the county in which the institution is physically located, and the courts of that county have jurisdiction of any activity, wherever located, conducted by the institution.
302.02 HistoryHistory: 1973 c. 90; 1975 c. 39, 189, 224; 1977 c. 29; 1977 c. 418 ss. 370 to 372, 924 (18) (d); 1979 c. 221; 1981 c. 20; 1983 a. 27, 332; 1985 a. 29; 1989 a. 31 ss. 1618, 1618m; Stats. 1989 s. 302.02; 1991 a. 39, 316; 1995 a. 344; 1997 a. 27; 2001 a. 103; 2003 a. 321 s. 111; 2017 a. 365 s. 111.
302.02 AnnotationUnder s. 801.50 (3), a prisoner’s civil action against a superintendent was properly venued in Dane County. Irby v. Young, 139 Wis. 2d 279, 407 N.W.2d 314 (Ct. App. 1987).
302.02 AnnotationAlthough review of disciplinary proceedings conducted by a private, out-of-state, contract prison may proceed in the state where the prison is located, when disciplined inmates were returned to Wisconsin and Tennessee courts refused to review the cases, because no statute allowed judicial review of prison disciplinary decisions applied to the inmates, Wisconsin courts could review the disciplinary decisions by certiorari. State ex rel. Curtis v. Litscher, 2002 WI App 172, 256 Wis. 2d 787, 650 N.W.2d 43, 01-1804.
302.02 AnnotationSub. (3t) deprives Wisconsin courts of competency to entertain certiorari actions seeking review of out-of-state prison disciplinary decisions unless a petitioner can show a denial of judicial review on jurisdictional or competency grounds in the state where the disciplinary action occurred. Allowing the courts of other states to resolve disputes over prison disciplinary actions within their borders is entirely rational and not a violation of equal protection. State ex rel. Myers v. Swenson, 2004 WI App 224, 277 Wis. 2d 749, 691 N.W.2d 357, 03-2406. See also State ex rel. Ponchik v. Bradley, 2004 WI App 226, 277 Wis. 2d 768, 690 N.W.2d 860, 03-2958.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6
cases, 1993–2004 · leading case: State Ex Rel. Myers v. Swenson, 2004 WI App 224 (Wis. Ct. App. 2004).
State Ex Rel. Myers v. Swenson, 2004 WI App 224 (Wis. Ct. App. 2004). “For all purposes of discipline and for judicial proceedings, each institution that is located in another state and authorized for use under s.”
State Ex Rel. Curtis v. Litscher, 2002 WI App 172 (Wis. Ct. App. 2002). “Here, DOC transferred the inmates to a Wisconsin prison immediately after the disciplinary hearing. Once the inmates were returned to Wisconsin, the Tennessee court refused to review their cases.”
Casteel v. Kolb, 500 N.W.2d 400 (Wis. Ct. App. 1993). “[9] Casteel maintains that sec. 302.02(1), Stats., entitles inmates to a "judicial trial" before any discipline may be imposed on them.”
State Ex Rel. Barksdale v. Litscher, 2004 WI App 130 (Wis. Ct. App. 2004). “Finally, we note that Wis. Stat. § 302.02 (3t) specifically directs that courts sitting in the state and county where a Wisconsin inmate is housed are to have jurisdiction over disciplinary matters regarding the inmate: For all purposes of discipline and for judicial…”
State Ex Rel. Ponchik v. Bradley, 2004 WI App 226 (Wis. Ct. App. 2004). “In Myers , we concluded that Wis. Stat. § 302.02 (3t) (2001-02) 2 deprives Wiscon *772 sin courts of competency to conduct certiorari review of out-of-state prison disciplinary decisions, unless an inmate can show that he was denied judicial review on jurisdictional or…”
Rheams v. Marquette Univ., 989 F. Supp. 991 (E.D. Wis. 1997). “General criteria for appointment and promotion of faculty members of Marquette University are contained in section 302.02(1). That section provides: Essential Criteria, The central task of the faculty is to keep knowledge living, and therefore growing, in their students and…”
— Wis. Stat. § 302.02(1) — 2 cases
Casteel v. Kolb, 500 N.W.2d 400 (Wis. Ct. App. 1993). “[9] Casteel maintains that sec. 302.02(1), Stats., entitles inmates to a "judicial trial" before any discipline may be imposed on them.”
Rheams v. Marquette Univ., 989 F. Supp. 991 (E.D. Wis. 1997). “General criteria for appointment and promotion of faculty members of Marquette University are contained in section 302.02(1). That section provides: Essential Criteria, The central task of the faculty is to keep knowledge living, and therefore growing, in their students and…”
— Wis. Stat. § 302.02(3t) — 3 cases
State Ex Rel. Myers v. Swenson, 2004 WI App 224 (Wis. Ct. App. 2004). “For all purposes of discipline and for judicial proceedings, each institution that is located in another state and authorized for use under s.”
State Ex Rel. Curtis v. Litscher, 2002 WI App 172 (Wis. Ct. App. 2002). “Here, DOC transferred the inmates to a Wisconsin prison immediately after the disciplinary hearing. Once the inmates were returned to Wisconsin, the Tennessee court refused to review their cases.”
State Ex Rel. Ponchik v. Bradley, 2004 WI App 226 (Wis. Ct. App. 2004). “In Myers , we concluded that Wis. Stat. § 302.02 (3t) (2001-02) 2 deprives Wiscon *772 sin courts of competency to conduct certiorari review of out-of-state prison disciplinary decisions, unless an inmate can show that he was denied judicial review on jurisdictional or…”
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.