Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 943.37 (2026)
Alteration of property identification marks
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
943.37943.37 Alteration of property identification marks. Whoever does any of the following with intent to prevent the identification of the property involved is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor:
943.37(1)(1) Alters or removes any identification mark on any log or other lumber without the consent of the owner; or
943.37(2)(2) Alters or removes any identification mark from any receptacle used by the manufacturer of any beverage; or
943.37(3)(3) Alters or removes any manufacturer’s identification number on personal property or possesses any personal property with knowledge that the manufacturer’s identification number has been removed or altered. Possession of 2 or more similar items of personal property with the manufacturer’s identification number altered or removed is prima facie evidence of knowledge of the alteration or removal and of an intent to prevent identification of the property.
943.37(4)(4) Alters or removes livestock brands, recorded under s. 95.11, from any animal without the owner’s consent, or possesses any livestock with knowledge that the brand has been altered or removed without the owner’s knowledge or consent.
943.37 Annotation“Similar” under sub. (3) means comparable or substantially alike. State v. Hamilton, 146 Wis. 2d 426, 432 N.W.2d 108 (Ct. App. 1988).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5
cases, 1988–2013 · leading case: State v. Hamilton, 432 N.W.2d 108 (Wis. Ct. App. 1988).
State v. Hamilton, 432 N.W.2d 108 (Wis. Ct. App. 1988). “, states, in relevant part: In subsection (2) [now subsection (3)] possession of 2 or more similar items of personal property with the identification marks altered or removed is prima facie evidence of knowledge that this has been done and of an intent to prevent identification…”
State v. Multaler, 2002 WI 35 (Wis. 2002). “1988), the court of appeals discussed the legislative intent component of the multiplicity test in the context of Wis. Stat. § 943.37 , the statute criminalizing the alteration of serial numbers.”
State v. Davison, 2003 WI 89 (Wis. 2003). “1988), the court of appeals allowed multiple punishment under Wis. Stat. § 943.37 (3) for each item a defendant possesses with altered or removed serial numbers, in order to make the criminal risk concomi *194 tant with the potential criminal profit.”
State v. Grayson, 493 N.W.2d 23 (Wis. 1992). “In Hamilton , the court of appeals determined that a defendant who possesses at one time and place a number of items with altered or removed serial numbers (contrary to sec. 943.37(3), Stats.) may be prosecuted for a separate charge based on each altered article of personal…”
State v. Jacobsen, 2014 WI App 13 (Wis. Ct. App. 2013). “In Hamilton , the court of appeals determined that a defendant who possesses at one time and place a number of items with altered or removed serial numbers (contrary to sec. 943.37(3), Stats.) may be prosecuted for a separate charge based on each altered article of personal…”
— Wis. Stat. § 943.37(3) — 3 cases
State v. Hamilton, 432 N.W.2d 108 (Wis. Ct. App. 1988). “, states, in relevant part: In subsection (2) [now subsection (3)] possession of 2 or more similar items of personal property with the identification marks altered or removed is prima facie evidence of knowledge that this has been done and of an intent to prevent identification…”
State v. Grayson, 493 N.W.2d 23 (Wis. 1992). “In Hamilton , the court of appeals determined that a defendant who possesses at one time and place a number of items with altered or removed serial numbers (contrary to sec. 943.37(3), Stats.) may be prosecuted for a separate charge based on each altered article of personal…”
State v. Jacobsen, 2014 WI App 13 (Wis. Ct. App. 2013). “In Hamilton , the court of appeals determined that a defendant who possesses at one time and place a number of items with altered or removed serial numbers (contrary to sec. 943.37(3), Stats.) may be prosecuted for a separate charge based on each altered article of personal…”
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.