Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 346.61 (2026)
Applicability of sections relating to reckless and drunken driving
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
346.61346.61 Applicability of sections relating to reckless and drunken driving. In addition to being applicable upon highways, ss. 346.62 to 346.64 are applicable upon all premises held out to the public for use of their motor vehicles, all premises provided by employers to employees for the use of their motor vehicles and all premises provided to tenants of rental housing in buildings of 4 or more units for the use of their motor vehicles, whether such premises are publicly or privately owned and whether or not a fee is charged for the use thereof. Sections 346.62 to 346.64 do not apply to private parking areas at farms or single-family residences.
346.61 AnnotationA privately owned parking lot was not included under this section. City of Kenosha v. Phillips, 142 Wis. 2d 549, 419 N.W.2d 236 (1988).
346.61 AnnotationA parking lot for patrons of a business is held out for the use of the public under this section. City of La Crosse v. Richling, 178 Wis. 2d 856, 505 N.W.2d 448 (Ct. App. 1993).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1969–2024 · leading case: Cnty. of Grant v. Daniel A. Vogt, 2014 WI 76 (Wis. 2014).
Cnty. of Grant v. Daniel A. Vogt, 2014 WI 76 (Wis. 2014). “2012AP1812 § 346.61 is "highly persuasive evidence of legislative intent that public parking lots are not highways for the purpose of enforcement of ch.”
City of Kenosha v. Phillips, 419 N.W.2d 236 (Wis. 1988). “The issue certified to this court by the court of appeals was stated as follows: *552 "Is a business establishment’s privately-owned parking lot 'held out to the public for use of motor vehicles’ as contemplated in sec. 346.61, Stats., when posted signs warn that it is an…”
State v. Valiant M. Green, 2022 WI 41 (Wis. 2022). “" Wis. Stat. § 346.61 . Rather, the laws apply "upon highways"6 and "premises held out to the public for use of their motor vehicles.”
City of La Crosse v. Richling, 505 N.W.2d 448 (Wis. Ct. App. 1993). “Richling claims the judgment must be reversed because the parking lot where the OMVWI violation occurred does not qualify as premises held out to the public for use of motor vehicles as required by sec. 346.61, Stats. 1 We reject this contention and affirm the conviction.”
Ellerman v. City of Manitowoc, 2003 WI App 216 (Wis. Ct. App. 2003). “2d 236 (1988), an operating while intoxicated case, the supreme court considered a *486 privately owned parking lot to be outside the enforcement capability of the police for the purposes of Wis. Stat. § 346.61 because the lot was not "held out to the public.”
State v. Tecza, 2008 WI App 79 (Wis. Ct. App. 2008). “2 The basis of the dismissal motion was the assertion that at the time of his arrest, he was not operating a vehicle on premises "held out to the public for use of their motor vehicles" as required by Wis. Stat. § 346.61 . 3 According to the supporting affidavit, *398 Geneva…”
State v. David A. Schultz (Wis. Ct. App. 2024). “First, Schultz contends that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to establish that he operated his motor vehicle on “premises held out to the public for use of their motor vehicles” because the State failed to prove who owned the parking lot where he operated his…”
State v. Jeffrey J. Sullivan (Wis. Ct. App. 2022). “§ 346.61 (2019-20).1 We reject Sullivan’s argument and affirm.”
State v. Carter, 598 N.W.2d 619 (Wis. Ct. App. 1999). “In both cases, the court considered whether a premises was held out for public use in the context of § 346.61, STATS., governing reckless driving and drunken driving.”
City of Kenosha v. Dennis, 168 N.W.2d 216 (Wis. 1969). “*699 Also we are completely satisfied that the accident occurred on a premise “held out to the public for use of their motor vehicles” as defined by sec. 346.61, Stats., and as adopted by sec.”
Timothy M. Casa De Calvo, Jr. v. Town of Hudson (Wis. Ct. App. 2020). “§ 346.61). On appeal, our supreme court concluded the business’s employee parking lot had not been held out for such public use.”
Vill. of Lomira v. Phillip N. Benninghoff (Wis. Ct. App. 2020). “§ 346.61 per WIS. STAT. § 343.305(2).… The current wording of the “Notice of Intent To Revoke” form specifically informs the defendant that he or she cannot contest subject matter jurisdiction under the “implied consent” statute as an issue to be adjudicated at a statutory…”
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.