Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 939.45 (2026)
Privilege
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
939.45939.45 Privilege. The fact that the actor’s conduct is privileged, although otherwise criminal, is a defense to prosecution for any crime based on that conduct. The defense of privilege can be claimed under any of the following circumstances:
939.45(1)(1) When the actor’s conduct occurs under circumstances of coercion or necessity so as to be privileged under s. 939.46 or 939.47; or
939.45(2)(2) When the actor’s conduct is in defense of persons or property under any of the circumstances described in s. 939.48 or 939.49; or
939.45(3)(3) When the actor’s conduct is in good faith and is an apparently authorized and reasonable fulfillment of any duties of a public office; or
939.45(5)(a)3.3. “Person responsible for the child’s welfare” includes the child’s parent, stepparent or guardian; an employee of a public or private residential home, institution or agency in which the child resides or is confined or that provides services to the child; or any other person legally responsible for the child’s welfare in a residential setting.
939.45(5)(b)(b) When the actor’s conduct is reasonable discipline of a child by a person responsible for the child’s welfare. Reasonable discipline may involve only such force as a reasonable person believes is necessary. It is never reasonable discipline to use force which is intended to cause great bodily harm or death or creates an unreasonable risk of great bodily harm or death.
939.45(6)(6) When for any other reason the actor’s conduct is privileged by the statutory or common law of this state.
939.45 AnnotationThe privilege under sub. (3) for public officials acting with apparent authority did not apply to a volunteer fire fighter driving while under the influence of an intoxicant. State v. Schoenheide, 104 Wis. 2d 114, 310 N.W.2d 650 (Ct. App. 1981).
939.45 AnnotationA foster parent is a “person legally responsible for the child’s welfare” under sub. (5). State v. West, 183 Wis. 2d 46, 515 N.W.2d 484 (Ct. App. 1994).
939.45 AnnotationA mother’s live-in boyfriend did not have parental immunity under sub. (5). The boyfriend did not have legal responsibility for the mother’s children, and the term “parent” will not be interpreted to include persons in loco parentis. State v. Dodd, 185 Wis. 2d 560, 518 N.W.2d 300 (Ct. App. 1994).
939.45 AnnotationA convicted felon’s possession of a firearm is privileged under sub. (6) in limited enumerated circumstances. State v. Coleman, 206 Wis. 2d 199, 556 N.W.2d 701 (1996), 95-0917.
939.45 AnnotationThe common law privilege to forcibly resist an unlawful arrest is abrogated. State v. Hobson, 218 Wis. 2d 350, 577 N.W.2d 825 (1998), 96-0914.
939.45 AnnotationThere is no statutory or common law privilege for the crime of carrying a concealed weapon under s. 941.23. State v. Dundon, 226 Wis. 2d 654, 594 N.W.2d 780 (1999), 97-1423.
939.45 AnnotationUnder the facts of this case, the privilege of self-defense was inapplicable to a charge of carrying a concealed weapon. State v. Nollie, 2002 WI 4, 249 Wis. 2d 538, 638 N.W.2d 280, 00-0744.
939.45 AnnotationSub. (6) incorporates excusable homicide by accident or misfortune. Accident is a defense that negatives intent. If a person kills another by accident, the killing could not have been intentional. Accident must be disproved beyond a reasonable doubt when a defendant raises it as a defense. When the state proves intent to kill beyond a reasonable doubt, it necessarily disproves accident. State v. Watkins, 2002 WI 101, 255 Wis. 2d 265, 647 N.W.2d 244, 00-0064.
939.45 AnnotationA defendant may demonstrate that the defendant was acting lawfully, a necessary element of an accident defense, by showing that the defendant was acting in lawful self-defense. Although intentionally pointing a firearm at another constitutes a violation of s. 941.20, under s. 939.48 (1) a person is privileged to point a gun at another person in self-defense if the person reasonably believes that the threat of force is necessary to prevent or terminate what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference. State v. Watkins, 2002 WI 101, 255 Wis. 2d 265, 647 N.W.2d 244, 00-0064.
939.45 AnnotationTo overcome the privilege of parental discipline in sub. (5), the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that only one of the following is not met: 1) the use of force must be reasonably necessary; 2) the amount and nature of the force used must be reasonable; and 3) the force used must not be known to cause, or create a substantial risk of, great bodily harm or death. Whether a reasonable person would have believed the amount of force used was necessary and not excessive must be determined from the standpoint of the defendant at the time of the defendant’s acts. The standard is what a person of ordinary intelligence and prudence would have believed in the defendant’s position under the circumstances that existed at the time of the alleged offense. State v. Kimberly B., 2005 WI App 115, 283 Wis. 2d 731, 699 N.W.2d 641, 04-1424.
939.45 AnnotationTestimony supporting the defendant father’s assertion that he was beaten with a belt as a child was not relevant to whether the amount of force he used in spanking his daughter was objectively reasonable. A parent may not abuse his or her child and claim that conduct is reasonable based on his or her history of being similarly abused. State v. Williams, 2006 WI App 212, 296 Wis. 2d 834, 723 N.W.2d 719, 05-2282.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 43
cases (13 in the last 5 years), 1976–2025 · leading case: State v. Hamdan, 2003 WI 113 (Wis. 2003).
State v. Hamdan, 2003 WI 113 (Wis. 2003). “The State contended that Hamdan should be prohibited from introducing evidence of crime statistics and prior robberies at the store, as well as Article I, Section 25, arguing that there is no privilege, as a matter of law, under the privilege statute ( Wis. Stat. § 939.45 ) in…”
State v. Nollie, 2002 WI 4 (Wis. 2002). “Nollie made an offer of proof that he would rely on this statement and other facts in asserting the privilege of self-defense under Wis. Stat. § 939.45 (2). The circuit court granted the State's motion, and Nollie was convicted at a jury trial.”
State v. Black, 2001 WI 31 (Wis. 2001). “29(2)(b) may be able to assert one of the six privileges enumerated in Wis. Stat. § 939.45 by way of a defense. [7] Indeed, Black attempts to raise § 939.”
State v. Dundon, 594 N.W.2d 780 (Wis. 1999). “" Wis. Stat. § 939.45 (1). ¶ 27. The defense of coercion exists when "A threat by a person other than the actor's coconspirator.”
State v. Head, 2002 WI 99 (Wis. 2002). “Having determined that no "objective reasonable" threshold is required to raise a claim of imperfect self-defense, we turn to the question of how to raise the issue of self-defense at trial.”
State v. Watkins, 2002 WI 101 (Wis. 2002). “However, two reports of the Judiciary Committee, one from 1950 and another from 1953 make clear that the legislature, in enacting Wis. Stat. § 939.45 (6) (privilege), intended to incorporate excusable homicide by accident or misfortune into the statute.”
State v. Coleman, 556 N.W.2d 701 (Wis. 1996). “29(2), by entirely denying a felon in possession of a firearm the defense of privilege. Accordingly, we conclude that a defense of privilege applies to § 941.”
State v. Sostre, 542 N.W.2d 774 (Wis. 1996). “Dodd , however, interprets Wis. Stat. § 939.45 (5) (1993-94). 4 This section is found in ch.”
Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985). “Wis. Stat. § 939.45 (4) (1981-1982) (officer may use force necessary for "a reasonable accomplishment of a lawful arrest").”
State v. Hobson, 577 N.W.2d 825 (Wis. 1998). “10 [13] also protects the common law privilege to forcibly resist an unlawful arrest, and based on Wis. Stat. § 939.45 (6), [14] Ms. Hobson's privileged conduct is a defense to any prosecution based on her conduct.”
Gritzner v. Michael R., 2000 WI 68 (Wis. 2000). “Bubner also contends that he should not be subject to a duty to exercise ordinary care to control Michael's conduct because non-parents who are prosecuted for physical abuse of a child may not rely on the parental discipline privilege set forth in Wis. Stat. § 939.45 (5). State…”
State v. Kimberly B., 2005 WI App 115 (Wis. Ct. App. 2005). “Pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 939.45 (5), a person responsible for the welfare of a child, such as a parent, enjoys a privilege to reasonably discipline the child by use of physical force.”
— Wis. Stat. § 939.45(1) — 6 cases
State v. Hamdan, 2003 WI 113 (Wis. 2003). “The State contended that Hamdan should be prohibited from introducing evidence of crime statistics and prior robberies at the store, as well as Article I, Section 25, arguing that there is no privilege, as a matter of law, under the privilege statute ( Wis. Stat. § 939.45 ) in…”
State v. Chrystul D. Kizer, 2021 WI App 46 (Wis. Ct. App. 2021).
State v. Chrystul D. Kizer, 2022 WI 58 (Wis. 2022).
State v. Chrystul D. Kizer, 2022 WI 58 (Wis. 2022).
State v. Joan L. Stetzer, 2025 WI 34 (Wis. 2025).
— Wis. Stat. § 939.45(2) — 5 cases
State v. Hamdan, 2003 WI 113 (Wis. 2003). “The State contended that Hamdan should be prohibited from introducing evidence of crime statistics and prior robberies at the store, as well as Article I, Section 25, arguing that there is no privilege, as a matter of law, under the privilege statute ( Wis. Stat. § 939.45 ) in…”
State v. Nollie, 2002 WI 4 (Wis. 2002). “Nollie made an offer of proof that he would rely on this statement and other facts in asserting the privilege of self-defense under Wis. Stat. § 939.45 (2). The circuit court granted the State's motion, and Nollie was convicted at a jury trial.”
State v. Scott A. Walker (Wis. Ct. App. 2019).
State v. Kyle C. Darnell (Wis. Ct. App. 2023).
State v. Thomas James Guolee (Wis. Ct. App. 2025).
— Wis. Stat. § 939.45(3) — 3 cases
State v. Stoehr, 396 N.W.2d 177 (Wis. 1986).
State v. Trentadue, 510 N.W.2d 727 (Wis. Ct. App. 1993).
State v. Schoenheide, 310 N.W.2d 650 (Wis. Ct. App. 1981).
— Wis. Stat. § 939.45(4) — 1 case
Robert Dean Mattis, M.D. v. Richard R. Schnarr & Robert Marek v. John C. Danforth, Attorney Gen., State of Missouri, Intervenor-Appellee, 547 F.2d 1007 (8th Cir. 1976).
— Wis. Stat. § 939.45(5) — 6 cases
State v. Dodd, 518 N.W.2d 300 (Wis. Ct. App. 1994).
State v. Sostre, 542 N.W.2d 774 (Wis. 1996). “Dodd , however, interprets Wis. Stat. § 939.45 (5) (1993-94). 4 This section is found in ch.”
State v. Heitkemper, 538 N.W.2d 561 (Wis. Ct. App. 1995).
State v. Peterson, 584 N.W.2d 144 (Wis. Ct. App. 1998).
State v. West, 515 N.W.2d 484 (Wis. Ct. App. 1994).
— Wis. Stat. § 939.45(5)(a) — 2 cases
State v. Dodd, 518 N.W.2d 300 (Wis. Ct. App. 1994).
State v. West, 515 N.W.2d 484 (Wis. Ct. App. 1994).
— Wis. Stat. § 939.45(5)(b) — 4 cases
State v. Kimberly B., 2005 WI App 115 (Wis. Ct. App. 2005). “Pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 939.45 (5), a person responsible for the welfare of a child, such as a parent, enjoys a privilege to reasonably discipline the child by use of physical force.”
State v. Peterson, 584 N.W.2d 144 (Wis. Ct. App. 1998).
Manitowoc Cnty. HSD v. T. H. (Wis. Ct. App. 2023).
State v. West, 515 N.W.2d 484 (Wis. Ct. App. 1994).
— Wis. Stat. § 939.45(6) — 9 cases
State v. Hamdan, 2003 WI 113 (Wis. 2003). “The State contended that Hamdan should be prohibited from introducing evidence of crime statistics and prior robberies at the store, as well as Article I, Section 25, arguing that there is no privilege, as a matter of law, under the privilege statute ( Wis. Stat. § 939.45 ) in…”
State v. Black, 2001 WI 31 (Wis. 2001). “29(2)(b) may be able to assert one of the six privileges enumerated in Wis. Stat. § 939.45 by way of a defense. [7] Indeed, Black attempts to raise § 939.”
State v. Watkins, 2002 WI 101 (Wis. 2002). “However, two reports of the Judiciary Committee, one from 1950 and another from 1953 make clear that the legislature, in enacting Wis. Stat. § 939.45 (6) (privilege), intended to incorporate excusable homicide by accident or misfortune into the statute.”
State v. Dundon, 594 N.W.2d 780 (Wis. 1999). “" Wis. Stat. § 939.45 (1). ¶ 27. The defense of coercion exists when "A threat by a person other than the actor's coconspirator.”
State v. Nollie, 2002 WI 4 (Wis. 2002). “Nollie made an offer of proof that he would rely on this statement and other facts in asserting the privilege of self-defense under Wis. Stat. § 939.45 (2). The circuit court granted the State's motion, and Nollie was convicted at a jury trial.”
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.