Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 940.32 (2026)
Stalking
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
940.32(1)(a)(a) “Course of conduct” means a series of 2 or more acts carried out over time, however short or long, that show a continuity of purpose, including any of the following:
940.32(1)(a)3.3. Appearing at the victim’s workplace or contacting the victim’s employer or coworkers.
940.32(1)(a)6.6. Contacting the victim by telephone, text message, electronic message, electronic mail, or other means of electronic communication or causing the victim’s telephone or electronic device or any other person’s telephone or electronic device to ring or generate notifications repeatedly or continuously, regardless of whether a conversation ensues.
940.32(1)(a)6m.6m. Photographing, videotaping, audiotaping, or, through any other electronic means, monitoring or recording the activities of the victim. This subdivision applies regardless of where the act occurs.
940.32(1)(a)7.7. Sending to the victim any physical or electronic material or contacting the victim by any means, including any message, comment, or other content posted on any Internet site or web application.
940.32(1)(a)7m.7m. Sending to a member of the victim’s family or household, or any current or former employer of the victim, or any current or former coworker of the victim, or any friend of the victim any physical or electronic material or contacting such person by any means, including any message, comment, or other content posted on any Internet site or web application for the purpose of obtaining information about, disseminating information about, or communicating with the victim.
940.32(1)(a)8.8. Placing an object on or delivering an object to property owned, leased, or occupied by the victim.
940.32(1)(a)9.9. Delivering an object to a member of the victim’s family or household or an employer, coworker, or friend of the victim or placing an object on, or delivering an object to, property owned, leased, or occupied by such a person with the intent that the object be delivered to the victim.
940.32(1)(c)(c) “Labor dispute” includes any controversy concerning terms, tenure or conditions of employment, or concerning the association or representation of persons in negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing or seeking to arrange terms or conditions of employment, regardless of whether the disputants stand in the proximate relation of employer and employee.
940.32(1)(cb)(cb) “Member of a family” means a spouse, parent, child, sibling, or any other person who is related by blood or adoption to another.
940.32(1)(cd)(cd) “Member of a household” means a person who regularly resides in the household of another or who within the previous 6 months regularly resided in the household of another.
940.32(1)(d)(d) “Suffer serious emotional distress” means to feel terrified, intimidated, threatened, harassed, or tormented.
940.32(2)(a)(a) The actor intentionally engages in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that would cause a reasonable person under the same circumstances to suffer serious emotional distress or to fear bodily injury to or the death of himself or herself or a member of his or her family or household.
940.32(2)(b)(b) The actor knows or should know that at least one of the acts that constitute the course of conduct will cause the specific person to suffer serious emotional distress or place the specific person in reasonable fear of bodily injury to or the death of himself or herself or a member of his or her family or household.
940.32(2)(c)(c) The actor’s acts cause the specific person to suffer serious emotional distress or induce fear in the specific person of bodily injury to or the death of himself or herself or a member of his or her family or household.
940.32(2e)(a)(a) After having been convicted of sexual assault under s. 940.225, 948.02, 948.025, or 948.085 or a domestic abuse offense, the actor engages in any of the acts listed in sub. (1) (a) 1. to 10., if the act is directed at the victim of the sexual assault or the domestic abuse offense.
940.32(2e)(b)(b) The actor knows or should know that the act will cause the specific person to suffer serious emotional distress or place the specific person in reasonable fear of bodily injury to or the death of himself or herself or a member of his or her family or household.
940.32(2e)(c)(c) The actor’s act causes the specific person to suffer serious emotional distress or induces fear in the specific person of bodily injury to or the death of himself or herself or a member of his or her family or household.
940.32(2m)(2m) Whoever violates sub. (2) is guilty of a Class H felony if any of the following applies:
940.32(2m)(a)(a) The actor has a previous conviction for a violent crime, as defined in s. 939.632 (1) (e) 1., or a previous conviction under this section or s. 947.013 (1r), (1t), (1v), or (1x).
940.32(2m)(b)(b) The actor has a previous conviction for a crime, the victim of that crime is the victim of the present violation of sub. (2), and the present violation occurs within 7 years after the prior conviction.
940.32(2m)(c)(c) The actor intentionally gains access or causes another person to gain access to a record in electronic format that contains personally identifiable information regarding the victim in order to facilitate the violation.
940.32(2m)(d)(d) The person violates s. 968.31 (1) or 968.34 (1) in order to facilitate the violation.
940.32(3)(3) Whoever violates sub. (2) is guilty of a Class F felony if any of the following applies:
940.32(3)(a)(a) The act results in bodily harm to the victim or a member of the victim’s family or household.
940.32(3)(b)(b) The actor has a previous conviction for a violent crime, as defined in s. 939.632 (1) (e) 1., or a previous conviction under this section or s. 947.013 (1r), (1t), (1v) or (1x), the victim of that crime is the victim of the present violation of sub. (2), and the present violation occurs within 7 years after the prior conviction.
940.32(3)(c)(c) The actor uses a dangerous weapon in carrying out any of the acts listed in sub. (1) (a) 1. to 9.
940.32(3m)(3m) A prosecutor need not show that a victim received or will receive treatment from a mental health professional in order to prove that the victim suffered serious emotional distress under sub. (2) (c) or (2e) (c).
940.32(4)(a)(a) This section does not apply to conduct that is or acts that are protected by the person’s right to freedom of speech or to peaceably assemble with others under the state and U.S. constitutions, including, but not limited to, any of the following:
940.32(4)(a)1.1. Giving publicity to and obtaining or communicating information regarding any subject, whether by advertising, speaking or patrolling any public street or any place where any person or persons may lawfully be.
940.32(4)(b)(b) Paragraph (a) does not limit the activities that may be considered to serve a legitimate purpose under this section.
940.32(5)(5) This section does not apply to conduct arising out of or in connection with a labor dispute.
940.32(6)(6) The provisions of this statute are severable. If any provision of this statute is invalid or if any application thereof is invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application.
940.32 AnnotationThis section does not violate the right to interstate travel and is not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad. State v. Ruesch, 214 Wis. 2d 548, 571 N.W.2d 898 (Ct. App. 1997), 96-2280.
940.32 AnnotationThe actor’s “acts” under sub. (2) (c) are not the equivalent of the actor’s “course of conduct” under sub. (2) (a). There must be proof that the actor’s acts caused fear and not that the course of conduct caused fear. State v. Sveum, 220 Wis. 2d 396, 584 N.W.2d 137 (Ct. App. 1998), 97-2185.
940.32 AnnotationA “previous conviction for a violent crime” is a substantive element of the Class H felony stalking offense under sub. (2m) (a), not a penalty enhancer. It was not error to allow the introduction of evidence at trial that the defendant had stipulated to having a previous conviction for a violent crime, nor was it error to instruct the jury to make a finding on that matter. State v. Warbelton, 2009 WI 6, 315 Wis. 2d 253, 759 N.W.2d 557, 07-0105.
940.32 AnnotationThe seven-year time restriction specified in sub. (2m) (b) requires that only the final act charged as part of a course of conduct occur within seven years of the previous conviction, and does not restrict by time the other acts used to establish the underlying course of conduct element of sub. (2). State v. Conner, 2009 WI App 143, 321 Wis. 2d 449, 775 N.W.2d 105, 08-1296.
940.32 AnnotationAlthough the acts in this case spanned apparently fewer than 15 minutes, this section specifically provides that stalking may be a series of two acts over a short time if the acts show a continuity of purpose. State v. Eichorn, 2010 WI App 70, 325 Wis. 2d 241, 783 N.W.2d 902, 09-1864.
940.32 AnnotationThis section is not overbroad under the 1st amendment. Although a stalker might use language in committing the crime, the core of the statute is the stalker’s intent to engage in conduct that the stalker knows or should know will cause fear in the victim and does cause the victim’s actual distress or fear. The language used by the defendant in stalking his victim was merely evidence of his crime and not prohibited in and of itself. State v. Hemmingway, 2012 WI App 133, 345 Wis. 2d 297, 825 N.W.2d 303, 11-2372.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 63
cases (24 in the last 5 years), 1977–2026 · leading case: State v. Warbelton, 2009 WI 6 (Wis. 2009).
State v. Warbelton, 2009 WI 6 (Wis. 2009). “1 Under Wis. Stat. § 940.32 (2m)(a) (2001-02), 2 whoever commits the crime of stalking is guilty of a Class H felony if the actor has a previous conviction for a violent crime.”
State v. Sveum, 2010 WI 92 (Wis. 2010). “¶ 12 On August 4, 2003, the State filed a complaint charging Sveum [4] with aggravated stalking as a party to a crime contrary to Wis. Stat. § 940.32 (3)(b) (2001-02) [5] and Wis.”
State v. Ruesch, 571 N.W.2d 898 (Wis. Ct. App. 1997). “Ruesch appeals his conviction of a violation of § 940.32, Stats., the stalking law. Because we conclude that the State proved all the elements necessary to support a conviction of the violation charged, that § 940.”
State v. Warbelton, 2008 WI App 42 (Wis. Ct. App. 2008). “(2001-02)) 1 in violation of Wis. Stat. § 940.32 (2) and (2m)(a)? Under the facts of this case, the trial court answered "yes" to both questions.”
State v. Conner, 2011 WI 8 (Wis. 2011). “Conner was subsequently charged with two counts of stalking with a previous conviction within seven years, in violation of Wis. Stat. § 940.32 (2) and *356 (2xn)(b)(2003-04), 2 and one count of criminal damage to property in violation of Wis.”
State v. Brent T. Novy, 2013 WI 23 (Wis. 2013). “¶5 In early May 2008, Novy was charged with one count of stalking, in violation of Wis. Stat. § 940.32 (2)(a), (b), and (c).”
State v. Sveum, 2009 WI App 81 (Wis. Ct. App. 2009). “Sveum was charged with an aggravated stalking offense under Wis. Stat. § 940.32 (2) and (3)(b) (2001-02), as party to a crime.”
State v. Hemmingway, 2012 WI App 133 (Wis. Ct. App. 2012). “Hemmingway for stalking with a previous conviction of a violent crime, Wis. Stat. § 940.32 (2m)(a) (2009-10). 1 Hemmingway challenged the statute as a facially overbroad regulation of protected speech, in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States…”
Wisconsin v. Laxton, 2002 WI 82 (Wis. 2002). “[3] Former Wis. Stat. § 940.32 (1985-1986) related to child abduction and was repealed effective July 1, 1989.”
Donald Maier v. Judy Smith, 912 F.3d 1064 (7th Cir. 2019). “Wis. Stat. § 940.32 (2)(a). The state must prove the defendant knew or should have known that one of his or her acts would likely cause the victim serious emotional distress.”
State v. Kutz, 2003 WI App 205 (Wis. Ct. App. 2003). “Wis. Stat. § 940.32 (2)(a) and (b) (1999-2000).”
Joseph Brown v. Jeffrey Kemp, 86 F.4th 745 (7th Cir. 2023). “21-1042 framed in terms that echo the Wisconsin criminal statute on stalking, Wis. Stat. § 940.32 . That statute includes prohibitions on “Maintaining a visual or physical proximity to the victim;” “Approaching or confronting the victim;” and “Photo- graphing, videotaping,…”
— Wis. Stat. § 940.32(1)(a) — 7 cases
State v. Sveum, 2010 WI 92 (Wis. 2010). “¶ 12 On August 4, 2003, the State filed a complaint charging Sveum [4] with aggravated stalking as a party to a crime contrary to Wis. Stat. § 940.32 (3)(b) (2001-02) [5] and Wis.”
Off. of Lawyer Reg. v. Osman A. Mirza, 2025 WI 6 (Wis. 2025).
State v. Keith X. Hoffman (Wis. Ct. App. 2021).
State v. Eichorn, 2010 WI App 70 (Wis. Ct. App. 2010).
Casasola (W.D. Wis. 2026).
— Wis. Stat. § 940.32(1)(d) — 3 cases
State v. Eichorn, 2010 WI App 70 (Wis. Ct. App. 2010).
State v. Brian D. Willis (Wis. Ct. App. 2023).
State v. Keith X. Hoffman (Wis. Ct. App. 2021).
— Wis. Stat. § 940.32(2) — 20 cases
State v. Ruesch, 571 N.W.2d 898 (Wis. Ct. App. 1997). “Ruesch appeals his conviction of a violation of § 940.32, Stats., the stalking law. Because we conclude that the State proved all the elements necessary to support a conviction of the violation charged, that § 940.”
State v. Patrick J. Lynch, 2016 WI 66 (Wis. 2016).
State v. Warbelton, 2009 WI 6 (Wis. 2009). “1 Under Wis. Stat. § 940.32 (2m)(a) (2001-02), 2 whoever commits the crime of stalking is guilty of a Class H felony if the actor has a previous conviction for a violent crime.”
State v. Deer, 372 N.W.2d 176 (Wis. Ct. App. 1985).
State v. Culver, 918 N.W.2d 103 (Wis. Ct. App. 2018).
— Wis. Stat. § 940.32(2)(a) — 3 cases
State v. Brian D. Willis (Wis. Ct. App. 2023).
State v. Roger G. Latimer (Wis. Ct. App. 2023).
v. Randy L. Johnson (Wis. Ct. App. 2024).
— Wis. Stat. § 940.32(2)(b) — 4 cases
State v. Keith X. Hoffman (Wis. Ct. App. 2021).
State v. Brian D. Willis (Wis. Ct. App. 2023).
State v. Roger G. Latimer (Wis. Ct. App. 2023).
Casasola (W.D. Wis. 2026).
— Wis. Stat. § 940.32(2)(c) — 2 cases
State v. Sveum, 584 N.W.2d 137 (Wis. Ct. App. 1998).
State v. Burrows, 925 N.W.2d 789 (Wis. Ct. App. 2018).
— Wis. Stat. § 940.32(2m) — 1 case
State v. Warbelton, 2009 WI 6 (Wis. 2009). “1 Under Wis. Stat. § 940.32 (2m)(a) (2001-02), 2 whoever commits the crime of stalking is guilty of a Class H felony if the actor has a previous conviction for a violent crime.”
— Wis. Stat. § 940.32(2m)(a) — 2 cases
State v. Warbelton, 2008 WI App 42 (Wis. Ct. App. 2008). “(2001-02)) 1 in violation of Wis. Stat. § 940.32 (2) and (2m)(a)? Under the facts of this case, the trial court answered "yes" to both questions.”
State v. Warbelton, 2009 WI 6 (Wis. 2009). “1 Under Wis. Stat. § 940.32 (2m)(a) (2001-02), 2 whoever commits the crime of stalking is guilty of a Class H felony if the actor has a previous conviction for a violent crime.”
— Wis. Stat. § 940.32(2m)(b) — 3 cases
State v. Conner, 2011 WI 8 (Wis. 2011). “Conner was subsequently charged with two counts of stalking with a previous conviction within seven years, in violation of Wis. Stat. § 940.32 (2) and *356 (2xn)(b)(2003-04), 2 and one count of criminal damage to property in violation of Wis.”
State v. Warbelton, 2009 WI 6 (Wis. 2009). “1 Under Wis. Stat. § 940.32 (2m)(a) (2001-02), 2 whoever commits the crime of stalking is guilty of a Class H felony if the actor has a previous conviction for a violent crime.”
State v. Conner, 2009 WI App 143 (Wis. Ct. App. 2009).
— Wis. Stat. § 940.32(2m)(c) — 1 case
State v. Brian L. Mendrzycki (Wis. Ct. App. 2026).
— Wis. Stat. § 940.32(2m)(e) — 1 case
State v. Eichorn, 2010 WI App 70 (Wis. Ct. App. 2010).
— Wis. Stat. § 940.32(3) — 5 cases
State v. Warbelton, 2009 WI 6 (Wis. 2009). “1 Under Wis. Stat. § 940.32 (2m)(a) (2001-02), 2 whoever commits the crime of stalking is guilty of a Class H felony if the actor has a previous conviction for a violent crime.”
State v. Sepulveda, 350 N.W.2d 96 (Wis. 1984).
Harris v. State, 254 N.W.2d 291 (Wis. 1977).
State v. Simpson, 347 N.W.2d 920 (Wis. Ct. App. 1984).
Harris v. Prast, 459 F. Supp. 303 (E.D. Wis. 1978).
— Wis. Stat. § 940.32(3)(a) — 1 case
State v. Gillie Robinson (Wis. Ct. App. 2025).
— Wis. Stat. § 940.32(3)(b) — 1 case
State v. Sveum, 2009 WI App 81 (Wis. Ct. App. 2009). “Sveum was charged with an aggravated stalking offense under Wis. Stat. § 940.32 (2) and (3)(b) (2001-02), as party to a crime.”
— Wis. Stat. § 940.32(3)(c) — 2 cases
State v. Warbelton, 2008 WI App 42 (Wis. Ct. App. 2008). “(2001-02)) 1 in violation of Wis. Stat. § 940.32 (2) and (2m)(a)? Under the facts of this case, the trial court answered "yes" to both questions.”
State v. Gillie Robinson (Wis. Ct. App. 2025).
— Wis. Stat. § 940.32(4) — 1 case
State v. Ruesch, 571 N.W.2d 898 (Wis. Ct. App. 1997). “Ruesch appeals his conviction of a violation of § 940.32, Stats., the stalking law. Because we conclude that the State proved all the elements necessary to support a conviction of the violation charged, that § 940.”
— Wis. Stat. § 940.32(5) — 1 case
State v. Ruesch, 571 N.W.2d 898 (Wis. Ct. App. 1997). “Ruesch appeals his conviction of a violation of § 940.32, Stats., the stalking law. Because we conclude that the State proved all the elements necessary to support a conviction of the violation charged, that § 940.”
— Wis. Stat. § 940.32(l)(a) — 6 cases
State v. Sveum, 2010 WI 92 (Wis. 2010). “¶ 12 On August 4, 2003, the State filed a complaint charging Sveum [4] with aggravated stalking as a party to a crime contrary to Wis. Stat. § 940.32 (3)(b) (2001-02) [5] and Wis.”
State v. Ruesch, 571 N.W.2d 898 (Wis. Ct. App. 1997). “Ruesch appeals his conviction of a violation of § 940.32, Stats., the stalking law. Because we conclude that the State proved all the elements necessary to support a conviction of the violation charged, that § 940.”
State v. Sveum, 2009 WI App 81 (Wis. Ct. App. 2009). “Sveum was charged with an aggravated stalking offense under Wis. Stat. § 940.32 (2) and (3)(b) (2001-02), as party to a crime.”
State v. Hemmingway, 2012 WI App 133 (Wis. Ct. App. 2012). “Hemmingway for stalking with a previous conviction of a violent crime, Wis. Stat. § 940.32 (2m)(a) (2009-10). 1 Hemmingway challenged the statute as a facially overbroad regulation of protected speech, in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States…”
State v. Sveum, 584 N.W.2d 137 (Wis. Ct. App. 1998).
— Wis. Stat. § 940.32(l)(c) — 1 case
State v. Ruesch, 571 N.W.2d 898 (Wis. Ct. App. 1997). “Ruesch appeals his conviction of a violation of § 940.32, Stats., the stalking law. Because we conclude that the State proved all the elements necessary to support a conviction of the violation charged, that § 940.”
— Wis. Stat. § 940.32(l)(d) — 1 case
State v. Sveum, 584 N.W.2d 137 (Wis. Ct. App. 1998).
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.