Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 943.12 (2026)
Possession of burglarious tools
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
943.12943.12 Possession of burglarious tools. Whoever has in personal possession any device or instrumentality intended, designed or adapted for use in breaking into any depository designed for the safekeeping of any valuables or into any building or room, with intent to use such device or instrumentality to break into a depository, building or room, and to steal therefrom, is guilty of a Class I felony.
943.12 AnnotationA homemade key used to open parking meters is a burglarious tool. Perkins v. State, 61 Wis. 2d 341, 212 N.W.2d 141 (1973).
943.12 AnnotationIt was implausible that the defendant was looking for the home of an acquaintance in order to pick up some artwork while carrying a crowbar, a pair of gloves, and a pair of socks. Hansen v. State, 64 Wis. 2d 541, 219 N.W.2d 246 (1974).
943.12 AnnotationSection 939.72 (3) does not bar convictions for possession of burglarious tools and burglary arising out of a single transaction. Dumas v. State, 90 Wis. 2d 518, 280 N.W.2d 310 (Ct. App. 1979).
943.12 AnnotationThe defendant’s two prior convictions for burglary were admissible to prove intent to use gloves, a long pocket knife, a crowbar, and a pillow case as burglarious tools. Vanlue v. State, 96 Wis. 2d 81, 291 N.W.2d 467 (1980).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1973–2022 · leading case: Vanlue v. State, 291 N.W.2d 467 (Wis. 1980).
Vanlue v. State, 291 N.W.2d 467 (Wis. 1980). “Mere possession of a crowbar and a pocket knife, along with a pillow case and a pair of gloves, is not a violation of sec. 943.12, Stats. Before possession of such tools is a crime under the provisions of sec.”
State v. Johnny K. Pinder, 919 N.W.2d 568 (Wis. 2018). “05 ; and one count of possession of burglarious tools, contrary to Wis. Stat. §§ 943.12 and 939.50(3)(i). 11 ¶16 On September 14, 2015, Pinder filed a motion to suppress on the basis that the "Order obtained by the State in this case [was] not a search warrant and thus, the…”
United States v. Joshua Reedy, 989 F.3d 548 (7th Cir. 2021). “The officers’ initial suspicion at the time of the Terry stop turned into probable cause as the investigation ad- vanced, foremost once they encountered Harding in the nearby backyard, heard his implausible yardwork explana- tion, found him with a walkie-talkie tuned like Reedy’s…”
Perkins v. State, 212 N.W.2d 141 (Wis. 1973). “On this appeal the defendant has posed three issues: Whether the homemade key allegedly used by the defendant constitutes a burglarious tool as defined by sec. 943.12, Stats.; 1 whether the district at *345 torney abused Ms discretion by charging defendant with possession of a…”
Dumas v. State, 280 N.W.2d 310 (Wis. Ct. App. 1979). “, and one count of possession of burglarious tools in violation of sec. 943.12, Stats. He was sentenced to an indeterminate term of up to five years on the burglary conviction and a consecutive term of one year on the possession conviction.”
State v. Kaelin, 538 N.W.2d 538 (Wis. Ct. App. 1995). “, possession of burglarious tools contrary to § 943.12, Stats., and resisting arrest contrary to § 946.”
Hansen v. State, 219 N.W.2d 246 (Wis. 1974). “To convict a person of violation of sec. 943.12, Stats., 1 three elements must he proven: (1) Possession of any device or instrumentality designed and adapted for use in breaking into any depository for the safekeeping of any valuables or into any building or room; (2) with…”
State v. Warner, 696 P.2d 1052 (Or. 1985). “060 (1977), enacted in 1893; Wis Stat Ann § 943.12 (West 1982), enacted in 1893.”
United States v. Milton G. Collins, Jr., 150 F.3d 668 (7th Cir. 1998). “Clearly, under Wisconsin law, in order to be convicted of attempted burglary a defendant must have created a serious, potential risk of harm.”
Fox v. State, 210 N.W.2d 722 (Wis. 1973). “is an exempt narcotic, one for which the purchaser must sign when he buys it, although a prescription is not required.”
State v. Mazur, 304 N.W.2d 180 (Wis. Ct. App. 1981). “This is an appeal by the State from an order dismissing count one of a two-count information alleging possession of burglarious tools in violation of sec. 943.12, Stats., and theft in violation of secs.”
Paepke v. Leck, 496 N.W.2d 181 (Wis. Ct. App. 1992). “Gambling machines are not the only items that the legislature has defined by the use to which they are put.”
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.