Wisconsin Statutes

Wis. Stat. § 303.09 (2026)

Huber facilities

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
303.09303.09Huber facilities.
303.09(1)(1)The county board of any county may establish, relocate and maintain an unlocked facility for use exclusively by persons granted leave privileges under s. 303.08 (1) and persons confined under s. 973.09 (4) or 973.11 (1) (b). The facility need not be located at the county seat.
303.09(2)(2)The county boards of 2 or more counties may jointly establish, relocate and maintain a facility described in sub. (1). The operation and expenses of the facility shall be governed by an agreement between those counties. In a jointly established facility, authority under ss. 303.08 (2m), 973.09 (4) and 973.11 (1) (b) may be exercised by a sheriff of any of the counties which jointly establish the facility. The agreement shall specify who has authority to act under ss. 303.08 (2m), 973.09 and 973.11 (1) (b).
303.09 HistoryHistory: 1983 a. 254; 1989 a. 31 s. 1690; Stats. 1989 s. 303.09; 1991 a. 253.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1992–2024 · leading case: State v. Guzman, 480 N.W.2d 446 (Wis. 1992).
State v. Guzman, 480 N.W.2d 446 (Wis. 1992). · cites it 4× “[4] Section 303.09 Huber Facilities. (1) The county board of any county may establish, relocate and maintain an unlocked facility for use exclusively by persons granted leave privileges under s.”
Rachel Slabey v. Dunn Cnty., Wisconsin, 2023 WI 2 (Wis. 2023). · cites it 2× “¶49 The jail assigned Slabey to the only bunk in the dorm that was entirely unmonitored by security cameras, a fact both Boigenzahn and Slabey knew.”
Prude, Terrance v. Meli, Anthony (W.D. Wis. 2024). “Defendants, in their terse response, proffer that Westra accurately recounted what the two different procedures state in his submissions, and they imply (without a new sworn statement from Westra) that Westra didn’t realize that the DAI policy trumped the DOC administrative…”
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.