Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 801.64 (2026)
Legislative findings; 2007 Wisconsin Act 1
✓ laws through the 2025-26 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
801.64801.64 Legislative findings; 2007 Wisconsin Act 1. The legislature finds that providing under 2007 Wisconsin Act 1 for the place of trial in the county where the offender resides is consistent with the legislature’s authority under article I, section 7, of the constitution and with previous acts by the legislature providing for the place of trial in counties other than where the elements of the offense may have occurred. The legislature further finds that allowing defendants charged with violating offenses covered by 2007 Wisconsin Act 1 to request a trial in the county where the offense occurred is consistent with the protections in article I, section 7, of the constitution. The legislature finds that violations of offenses covered by 2007 Wisconsin Act 1 are violations of the public trust that should be adjudicated in the county where the offender resides so the individuals who the defendant interacts with daily, serves, or represents as a public official or candidate and whose trust was violated by the offense will judge the defendant’s guilt or innocence. The legislature further finds that to so provide is consistent with equal protection of the laws under article I, section 1, of the constitution. The legislature finds the venue provision in 2007 Wisconsin Act 1 represents an appropriate balance between the rights of the defendant and the need to prevent and prosecute civil and criminal offenses covered by 2007 Wisconsin Act 1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1
case, 2010–2010 · leading case: State v. Jensen, 2010 WI 38, 782 N.W.2d 415.
State v. Jensen, 2010 WI 38, 782 N.W.2d 415. “¶ 17 In 2007 Wisconsin Act 1, the legislature also enacted Wis. Stat. § 801.64 , which establishes the purpose of the new venue provision.”
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.