Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 905.065 (2026)
Honesty testing devices
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
905.065(1)(1) Definition. In this section, “honesty testing device” means a polygraph, voice stress analysis, psychological stress evaluator or any other similar test purporting to test honesty.
905.065(2)(2) General rule of the privilege. A person has a privilege to refuse to disclose and to prevent another from disclosing any oral or written communications during or any results of an examination using an honesty testing device in which the person was the test subject.
905.065(3)(3) Who may claim privilege. The privilege may be claimed by the person, by the person’s guardian or conservator or by the person’s personal representative, if the person is deceased.
905.065(4)(4) Exception. There is no privilege under this section if there is a valid and voluntary written agreement between the test subject and the person administering the test.
905.065 AnnotationA distinction exists between an inquiry into the taking of a polygraph and an inquiry into its results. An offer to take a polygraph is relevant to an assessment of an offeror’s credibility. State v. Wofford, 202 Wis. 2d 523, 551 N.W.2d 46 (Ct. App. 1996), 95-0979.
905.065 AnnotationThe results of polygraph examinations are inadmissible in civil cases. While an offer to take a polygraph examination may be relevant to the offeror’s credibility, that a person agreed to a polygraph at the request of law enforcement has not been found admissible and could not be without proof that the person believed the results would accurately indicate whether the person was lying. Estate of Neumann v. Neumann, 2001 WI App 61, 242 Wis. 2d 205, 626 N.W.2d 821, 00-0557.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1999–2021 · leading case: State v. Davis, 2008 WI 71 (Wis. 2008).
State v. Davis, 2008 WI 71 (Wis. 2008). “See Wis. Stat. § 905.065 (1); 7 Daniel D. Blinka, Wisconsin Evidence § 5065.”
State v. Fischer, 2010 WI 6 (Wis. 2010). “Merely because an expert may opine that he or she relied upon PBT results in order to form an opinion does not render the underlying test results admissible. As we have seen in other scenarios, an expert's opinion does not transform inadmissible evidence into admissible evidence.”
Imposition of Sanctions in Alt v. Cline, 589 N.W.2d 21 (Wis. 1999). “319, Laws of 1979 (creating "polygraph" privilege at Wis. Stat. § 905.065 ). [6] Because the majority treats Philler as creating a qualified privilege, for the sake of refuting its argument I will treat Philler likewise.”
State v. Adam W. Vice, 2021 WI 63 (Wis. 2021). “Use of Polygraph Results in Post-Polygraph Interviews ¶23 Polygraph results themselves, as well as statements made by suspects during polygraph examinations, are generally inadmissible in court.”
State v. Adam W. Vice, 2020 WI App 34 (Wis. Ct. App. 2020). “§ 905.065(1)-(2). Statements made after the examination is over, however, are admissible as long as certain requirements are met.”
Josephine Lee v. Southside Virginia Training Ctr. (Va. Ct. App. 2010). “” Wis. Stat. § 905.065 (2). Unlike the Wisconsin statute examined in Davis, Code § 8.”
— Wis. Stat. § 905.065(1) — 1 case
State v. Adam W. Vice, 2020 WI App 34 (Wis. Ct. App. 2020). “§ 905.065(1)-(2). Statements made after the examination is over, however, are admissible as long as certain requirements are met.”
— Wis. Stat. § 905.065(2) — 1 case
State v. Davis, 2008 WI 71 (Wis. 2008). “See Wis. Stat. § 905.065 (1); 7 Daniel D. Blinka, Wisconsin Evidence § 5065.”
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.