Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 943.23 (2026)
Operating vehicle without owner’s consent
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
943.23(1)(a)(a) “Drive” means the exercise of physical control over the speed and direction of a vehicle while it is in motion.
943.23(1)(b)11.11. The frame or, in the case of a unitized body, the supporting structure which serves as the frame.
943.23(1)(c)(c) “Operate” includes the physical manipulation or activation of any of the controls of a vehicle necessary to put it in motion.
943.23(2)(2) Except as provided in sub. (3m), whoever intentionally takes and drives any vehicle without the consent of the owner is guilty of the following:
943.23(2g)(2g) Except as provided in sub. (3m), whoever intentionally takes and drives any commercial motor vehicle without the consent of the owner is guilty of a Class G felony.
943.23(3)(3) Except as provided in sub. (3m), whoever intentionally drives or operates any vehicle without the consent of the owner is guilty of the following:
943.23(3g)(3g) Except as provided in sub. (3m), whoever intentionally drives or operates any commercial motor vehicle without the consent of the owner is guilty of a Class H felony.
943.23(3m)(3m) It is an affirmative defense to a prosecution for a violation of sub. (2) or (3) if the defendant abandoned the vehicle without damage within 24 hours after the vehicle was taken from the possession of the owner. An affirmative defense under this subsection mitigates the offense to a Class A misdemeanor. A defendant who raises this affirmative defense has the burden of proving the defense by a preponderance of the evidence.
943.23(4m)(4m) Whoever knows that the owner does not consent to the driving or operation of a vehicle and intentionally accompanies, as a passenger in the vehicle, a person while he or she violates sub. (2), (3), or (3m) is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
943.23(5)(5) Whoever intentionally removes a major part of a vehicle without the consent of the owner is guilty of a Class I felony. Whoever intentionally removes any other part or component of a vehicle without the consent of the owner is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
943.23(6)(b)(b) In addition to the other penalties provided for violation of this section, a judge shall require a violator of sub. (2g) or (3g) to pay restitution for any damage he or she causes to a commercial motor vehicle to or on behalf of a victim, and a judge may require any other violator to pay restitution to or on behalf of a victim, regardless of whether the violator is placed on probation under s. 973.09. If restitution is ordered, the court shall consider the financial resources and future ability of the violator to pay and shall determine the method of payment. Upon the application of any interested party, the court may schedule and hold an evidentiary hearing to determine the value of the victim’s pecuniary loss resulting from the offense.
943.23 HistoryHistory: 1977 c. 173; 1987 a. 349; 1989 a. 359; 1993 a. 92; 2001 a. 109; 2017 a. 287, 311; 2023 a. 10, 166.
943.23 AnnotationThe statutory language “intentionally takes and drives any vehicle without the consent of the owner” does not require that the driver of the stolen vehicle be the person who actually took the vehicle from the rightful owner. In this case, the defendant was charged with intentionally taking and driving an automobile but not charged with the initial taking from the true owner. While the state did not need to claim or prove that the defendant was the person who initially took the car from the true owner, the state was required to prove that, in addition to driving the stolen car, the defendant had knowledge that the defendant was operating the car without the owner’s consent. Edwards v. State, 46 Wis. 2d 249, 174 N.W.2d 269 (1970).
943.23 AnnotationLeaving a vehicle because of the threat of imminent arrest is involuntary relinquishment, not abandonment under sub. (2) [now sub. (3m)]. State v. Olson, 106 Wis. 2d 572, 317 N.W.2d 448 (1982).
943.23 AnnotationRestitution under sub. (6) (b) is analyzed in the same manner as restitution under the general statute, s. 973.20. A defendant is entitled to a hearing, although it may be informal, to challenge the existence of damage to the victim, as well as the amount of damage. If damage results from a criminal episode in which the defendant played any part, the defendant is jointly and severally liable in restitution for the amount of damages. State v. Madlock, 230 Wis. 2d 324, 602 N.W.2d 104 (Ct. App. 1999), 98-2718.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 88
cases (10 in the last 5 years), 1964–2026 · leading case: McNeil v. Hansen, 2007 WI 56 (Wis. 2007).
McNeil v. Hansen, 2007 WI 56 (Wis. 2007). “63 (3)(b) in regard to implied consent for driver intoxication tests); Wis. Stat. § 943.23 (1)(c) (defining "operate" the same as § 346.”
State v. Richard J. Sulla, 2016 WI 46 (Wis. 2016). “Count 4: Operating a motor vehicle without the owner's consent, as a party to a crime, contrary to Wis. Stat. §§ 943.23 (2), 939.05, and 939.”
State v. Adrean L. Smith, 2014 WI 88 (Wis. 2014). “5 At the time of the shooting, Cummings was on probation term for three misdemeanor convictions of issuing worthless checks, contrary to Wis. Stat. § 943.23 (1) (2007-08). 6 Subsequent investigation would reveal that Cummings and Carla were not, in fact, having an affair.”
State v. Madlock, 602 N.W.2d 104 (Wis. Ct. App. 1999). “Madlock appeals from an order denying his motion to vacate the restitution portion of a judgment of conviction for operating a motor vehicle without the owner's consent pursuant to § 943.23(3), Stats. Madlock argues that the trial court erred by refusing to conduct a restitution…”
State v. Kleser, 2010 WI 88 (Wis. 2010). “20 (1)(a) and operating a vehicle without owner's consent in violation of Wis. Stat. § 943.23 (3m). [6] Just prior to issuing its reverse waiver order, the circuit court informed the parties that it would be dismissing the criminal complaints and ordering the State to file a…”
State v. Torres, 2003 WI App 199 (Wis. Ct. App. 2003). “00-CF-000219, where Torres was convicted of operating a motor vehicle without the owner's consent, contrary to Wis. Stat. § 943.23 (3) (1999-2000). He was sentenced on that charge to two years' initial term of confinement with two years' extended supervision.”
State v. Byrge, 2000 WI 101 (Wis. 2000). “49 (1)(b), and (4) operating a motor vehicle without the owner's consent contrary to Wis. Stat. § 943.23 (2). ¶ 10. The Circuit Court for Calumet County conducted a preliminary hearing on September 16, 1994, and the court bound Byrge over for trial on all counts.”
State v. Saunders, 2002 WI 107 (Wis. 2002). “(1991-92); operating a motor vehicle without the owner's consent, contrary to Wis. Stat. § 943.23 (3) (1991-92); and operating a vehicle to flee an officer, contrary to Wis.”
State v. Miller, 605 N.W.2d 567 (Wis. Ct. App. 1999). “Section 943.23, STATS., prohibits operating the vehicle of another without that person's consent.”
State v. Fernandez, 2009 WI 29 (Wis. 2009). “Wirtz presiding, Fernandez pled no contest to taking and driving a vehicle without consent in violation of Wis. Stat. § 943.23 (2). [8] The court withheld sentence, and Fernandez was placed on probation for two years.”
Mitchell v. State, 267 N.W.2d 349 (Wis. 1978). “He was charged with driving a motor vehicle without the owner's consent, contrary to sec. 943.23, Stats. His defense was that he had been given permission to drive the car by a friend who claimed to be the owner.”
Cornell Reynolds v. Randall Hepp, 902 F.3d 699 (7th Cir. 2018). “23 (1g) (defining carjacking as intentionally taking "any vehicle without the consent of the owner" by "the use of, or the threat of the use of, force" or a dangerous weapon). The court also found that even if the jury instructions were improper, Reynolds could not prove…”
— Wis. Stat. § 943.23(1) — 5 cases
McNeil v. Hansen, 2007 WI 56 (Wis. 2007). “63 (3)(b) in regard to implied consent for driver intoxication tests); Wis. Stat. § 943.23 (1)(c) (defining "operate" the same as § 346.”
State v. Olson, 317 N.W.2d 448 (Wis. 1982).
State v. Olson, 308 N.W.2d 917 (Wis. Ct. App. 1981).
State v. Feela, 304 N.W.2d 152 (Wis. Ct. App. 1981).
Sabin v. Israel, 554 F. Supp. 390 (E.D. Wis. 1983).
— Wis. Stat. § 943.23(1)(c) — 1 case
McNeil v. Hansen, 2007 WI 56 (Wis. 2007). “63 (3)(b) in regard to implied consent for driver intoxication tests); Wis. Stat. § 943.23 (1)(c) (defining "operate" the same as § 346.”
— Wis. Stat. § 943.23(1g) — 2 cases
State v. Marte L. Coffee (Wis. Ct. App. 2021).
State v. Gant, 680 N.W.2d 832 (Wis. Ct. App. 2004).
— Wis. Stat. § 943.23(1m) — 1 case
State v. Dixon, 677 N.W.2d 732 (Wis. Ct. App. 2004).
— Wis. Stat. § 943.23(2) — 17 cases
State v. Moran, 2005 WI 115 (Wis. 2005).
State v. Olson, 317 N.W.2d 448 (Wis. 1982).
State v. Byrge, 594 N.W.2d 388 (Wis. Ct. App. 1999).
State v. Goldstein, 513 N.W.2d 631 (Wis. Ct. App. 1994).
State v. Mahone, 379 N.W.2d 878 (Wis. Ct. App. 1985).
— Wis. Stat. § 943.23(3) — 16 cases
State v. Madlock, 602 N.W.2d 104 (Wis. Ct. App. 1999). “Madlock appeals from an order denying his motion to vacate the restitution portion of a judgment of conviction for operating a motor vehicle without the owner's consent pursuant to § 943.23(3), Stats. Madlock argues that the trial court erred by refusing to conduct a restitution…”
State v. Brown, 2003 WI App 34 (Wis. Ct. App. 2003).
State v. Dentici, 2002 WI App 77 (Wis. Ct. App. 2002).
State v. Theriault, 522 N.W.2d 254 (Wis. Ct. App. 1994).
State v. Alex Scott Stone, 2021 WI App 84 (Wis. Ct. App. 2021).
— Wis. Stat. § 943.23(4m) — 1 case
State v. David D. Harris (Wis. Ct. App. 2025).
— Wis. Stat. § 943.23(5) — 1 case
State v. Kennedy, 528 N.W.2d 9 (Wis. Ct. App. 1994).
— Wis. Stat. § 943.23(6)(b) — 1 case
State v. Madlock, 602 N.W.2d 104 (Wis. Ct. App. 1999). “Madlock appeals from an order denying his motion to vacate the restitution portion of a judgment of conviction for operating a motor vehicle without the owner's consent pursuant to § 943.23(3), Stats. Madlock argues that the trial court erred by refusing to conduct a restitution…”
— Wis. Stat. § 943.23(l)(c) — 1 case
McNeil v. Hansen, 2007 WI 56 (Wis. 2007). “63 (3)(b) in regard to implied consent for driver intoxication tests); Wis. Stat. § 943.23 (1)(c) (defining "operate" the same as § 346.”
— Wis. Stat. § 943.23(lg) — 1 case
State v. McKinnie, 2002 WI App 82 (Wis. Ct. App. 2002).
— Wis. Stat. § 943.23(lr) — 1 case
State v. Miller, 605 N.W.2d 567 (Wis. Ct. App. 1999). “Section 943.23, STATS., prohibits operating the vehicle of another without that person's consent.”
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.