Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 943.50 (2026)
Retail theft; theft of services
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
943.50(1)(ag)(ag) “Merchant” includes any “merchant” as defined in s. 402.104 (3) or any innkeeper, motelkeeper or hotelkeeper.
943.50(1)(am)(am) “Service provider” means a merchant who provides a service to retail customers without a written contract with the expectation that the service will be paid for by the customer upon completion of the service.
943.50(1)(ar)(ar) “Theft detection device” means any tag or other device that is used to prevent or detect theft and that is attached to merchandise held for resale by a merchant or to property of a merchant.
943.50(1)(as)(as) “Theft detection device remover” means any tool or device used, designed for use or primarily intended for use in removing a theft detection device from merchandise held for resale by a merchant or property of a merchant.
943.50(1)(at)(at) “Theft detection shielding device” means any laminated or coated bag or device designed to shield merchandise held for resale by a merchant or property of a merchant from being detected by an electronic or magnetic theft alarm sensor.
943.50(1)(b)2.2. For merchandise held for resale, the merchant’s stated price of the merchandise or, in the event of altering, transferring or removing a price marking or causing a cash register or other sales device to reflect less than the merchant’s stated price, the difference between the merchant’s stated price of the merchandise and the altered price.
943.50(1)(b)3.3. For a service provided by a service provider, the price that the service provider stated for the service before the service was provided.
943.50(1m)(1m) A person may be penalized as provided in sub. (4) if he or she does any of the following without the merchant’s consent and with intent to deprive the merchant permanently of possession or the full purchase price of the merchandise or property:
943.50(1m)(a)(a) Intentionally alters indicia of price or value of merchandise held for resale by a merchant or property of a merchant.
943.50(1m)(b)(b) Intentionally takes and carries away merchandise held for resale by a merchant or property of a merchant.
943.50(1m)(c)(c) Intentionally transfers merchandise held for resale by a merchant or property of a merchant.
943.50(1m)(d)(d) Intentionally conceals merchandise held for resale by a merchant or property of a merchant.
943.50(1m)(e)(e) Intentionally retains possession of merchandise held for resale by a merchant or property of a merchant.
943.50(1m)(f)(f) While anywhere in the merchant’s store, intentionally removes a theft detection device from merchandise held for resale by a merchant or property of a merchant.
943.50(1m)(g)(g) Uses, or possesses with intent to use, a theft detection shielding device to shield merchandise held for resale by a merchant or property of merchant from being detected by an electronic or magnetic theft alarm sensor.
943.50(1m)(h)(h) Uses, or possesses with intent to use, a theft detection device remover to remove a theft detection device from merchandise held for resale by a merchant or property of a merchant.
943.50(1r)(1r) Any person may be penalized as provided in sub. (4) if, having obtained a service from a service provider, he or she, without the service provider’s consent and with intent to deprive the service provider permanently of the full price of the service, absconds and intentionally fails or refuses to pay for the service.
943.50(3)(3) A merchant or service provider, a merchant’s or service provider’s adult employee or a merchant’s or service provider’s security agent who has reasonable cause for believing that a person has violated this section in his or her presence may detain, within or at the merchant’s or service provider’s place of business where the suspected violation took place, the person in a reasonable manner for a reasonable length of time to deliver the person to a peace officer, or to his or her parent or guardian in the case of a minor. The detained person must be promptly informed of the purpose for the detention and be permitted to make phone calls, but he or she shall not be interrogated or searched against his or her will before the arrival of a peace officer who may conduct a lawful interrogation of the accused person. The merchant or service provider, merchant’s or service provider’s adult employee or merchant’s or service provider’s security agent may release the detained person before the arrival of a peace officer or parent or guardian. Any merchant or service provider, merchant’s or service provider’s adult employee or merchant’s or service provider’s security agent who acts in good faith in any act authorized under this section is immune from civil or criminal liability for those acts.
943.50(3m)(a)(a) In any action or proceeding for violation of this section, duly identified and authenticated photographs of merchandise which was the subject of the violation may be used as evidence in lieu of producing the merchandise.
943.50(3m)(am)(am) For the purpose of sub. (4m), evidence that a person sold by means of the Internet merchandise that is similar to the merchandise that is the subject of a violation under sub. (1m) (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), or (f), within 90 days before the violation, is prima facie evidence of the person’s intent to sell the merchandise by means of the Internet.
943.50(3m)(b)(b) A merchant or merchant’s adult employee is privileged to defend property as prescribed in s. 939.49.
943.50(4)(a)(a) Except as provided in sub. (4m), a Class A misdemeanor, if the value of the merchandise does not exceed $500.
943.50(4)(bf)(bf) A Class I felony, if the value of the merchandise exceeds $500 but does not exceed $5,000.
943.50(4)(bm)(bm) A Class H felony, if the value of the merchandise exceeds $5,000 but does not exceed $10,000.
943.50(4g)(4g) A person who is charged with a misdemeanor under sub. (4) (a) may be charged with and convicted of a Class I felony if the person has one or more prior convictions for a violation under sub. (4) (a) to (c) or s. 943.20 (3) (a) to (cm). A person who is charged with a felony under sub. (4) (bf) to (c) may be charged with and convicted of a felony that is one classification higher than the felony classification provided in sub. (4) if the person has one or more prior convictions for a violation under sub. (4) (a) to (c) or s. 943.20 (3) (a) to (cm).
943.50(4m)(4m) Whoever violates sub. (1m) (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), or (f) is guilty of a Class I felony if all of the following apply:
943.50(5)(a)(a) In addition to the other penalties provided for violation of this section, a judge may order a violator to pay restitution under s. 973.20.
943.50(5)(b)(b) In actions concerning violations of ordinances in conformity with this section, a judge may order a violator to make restitution under s. 800.093.
943.50(5)(c)(c) If the court orders restitution under pars. (a) and (b), any amount of restitution paid to the victim under one of those paragraphs reduces the amount the violator must pay in restitution to that victim under the other paragraph.
943.50(6)(6) For purposes of charging and penalty determinations under sub. (4) (a) to (c), the value of property from multiple violations committed in the same prosecutorial unit by the same person during a course of conduct, as defined in s. 947.013 (1) (a), may be aggregated.
943.50 HistoryHistory: 1977 c. 173; 1981 c. 270; 1983 a. 189 s. 329 (24); 1985 a. 179; 1987 a. 398; 1991 a. 39, 40; 1993 a. 71; 1997 a. 262; 2001 a. 16, 109; 2011 a. 110, 174; 2025 a. 106.
943.50 AnnotationA merchant acted reasonably in detaining an innocent shopper for 20 minutes and releasing the shopper without summoning police. Johnson v. K-Mart Enterprises, Inc., 98 Wis. 2d 533, 297 N.W.2d 74 (Ct. App. 1980).
943.50 AnnotationSub. (3) requires only that the merchant’s employee have probable cause to believe that the person violated this section in the employee’s presence; actual theft need not be committed in the employee’s presence. State v. Lee, 157 Wis. 2d 126, 458 N.W.2d 562 (Ct. App. 1990).
943.50 AnnotationReasonableness under sub. (3) requires: 1) reasonable cause to believe that the person violated this section; 2) that the manner of the detention and the actions taken in an attempt to detain must be reasonable; and 3) that the length of the detention and the actions taken in an attempt to detain must be reasonable. An attempt to detain may include pursuit, including reasonable pursuit off the merchant’s premises. Peters v. Menard, Inc., 224 Wis. 2d 174, 589 N.W.2d 395 (1999), 97-1514.
943.50 AnnotationThe state has authority to charge multiple retail thefts under this section as one continuous offense pursuant to s. 971.36 (3). State v. Lopez, 2019 WI 101, 389 Wis. 2d 156, 936 N.W.2d 125, 17-0913.
943.50 AnnotationShoplifting: Protection for Merchants in Wisconsin. Muren. 57 MLR 141 (1973).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 28
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1980–2026 · leading case: Miller v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 580 N.W.2d 233 (Wis. 1998).
Miller v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 580 N.W.2d 233 (Wis. 1998). “This case presents two issues: first, whether Wisconsin recognizes the tort of negligent hiring, training or supervision and, if so, whether the elements of that tort were satisfied in this case so that the jury's award of compensatory and punitive damages was appropriate; and…”
Peters v. Menard, Inc., 589 N.W.2d 395 (Wis. 1999). “Montabon presiding, entered summary judgment in favor of defendants API and Menard, finding that they were immune from liability under subsection (3) of Wisconsin's retail theft statute, Wis. Stat. § 943.50 . The court also determined that "no reasonable fact finder could…”
Shopko Stores, Inc. v. Kujak, 433 N.W.2d 618 (Wis. Ct. App. 1988). “04(k) of the La Crosse city ordinances, adopting sec. 943.50, Stats. The municipal court assessed a forfeiture of $67.”
State v. Harrell, 546 N.W.2d 115 (Wis. 1996). “Crystal Parker (a/k/a Crystal Harrell) was charged with two counts of retail theft in violation of Wis. Stat. § 943.50 (1m) and (4)(a). [3] Since Parker was on parole for a 1991 felony retail theft conviction in Dane County, she was charged as a repeat offender under Wis.”
State v. Lee, 458 N.W.2d 562 (Wis. Ct. App. 1990). “We must examine what McDonnell knew at the time he confronted and temporarily detained Lee in order to determine whether McDonnell had probable cause to believe that Lee had violated sec. 943.50, Stats. Since the historical facts are undisputed, this is a legal matter, which we…”
Hainz v. Shopko Stores, Inc., 359 N.W.2d 397 (Wis. Ct. App. 1984). “Shopko claimed immunity from civil liability for the actions of their employees under sec. 943.50(3), Stats. At the close of the plaintiffs’ case, Shopko moved to dismiss on the ground that there was no credible evidence to support the claim that the plaintiffs were unreasonably…”
Johnson v. K-Mart Enter., Inc., 297 N.W.2d 74 (Wis. Ct. App. 1980). “: (1) A merchant or merchant’s adult employee (who has) (2) Probable cause (for believing that a person has violated sec. 943.50, Stats., may) (3) Detain suspect in a reasonable manner, (4) For a reasonable length of time (to) (5) Deliver suspect to a peace officer.”
State v. Matthew R. Steffes, 2013 WI 53 (Wis. 2013). “The State in future similar cases might use Wis. Stat. § 943.50 , creating a felony for the theft of services valued at more than $500.”
State v. Hanson, 2001 WI 70 (Wis. 2001). “The State charged the defendant, Flowers, with two counts of retail theft, as party to a crime, in violation of Wis. Stat. §§ 943.50 (1m) and 939.05, for stealing various items from a food store.”
State v. Kramsvogel, 369 N.W.2d 145 (Wis. 1985). “(1) Whoever intentionally alters indicia of price or value of merchandise or who takes and carries away, transfers, conceals or retains possession of merchandise held for resale by a merchant without his consent and with intent to deprive the merchant permanently of possession,…”
United States v. Bennie Lee, 78 F.3d 1236 (7th Cir. 1996). “Wis. Stat. § 943.50 . Because each theft involved merchandise valued at less than $1000, each was a Wisconsin Class A misdemeanor carrying a maximum penalty of nine months imprisonment.”
State v. Lopez, 922 N.W.2d 855 (Wis. Ct. App. 2018). “As indicated above, by aggregating the seven alleged acts, the State was able to charge Lopez and Rodriguez with a class I felony under Wis. Stat. § 943.50 (4)(bf). If the State may not aggregate the seven separate alleged incidents of retail theft, the State may, at most,…”
— Wis. Stat. § 943.50(1) — 2 cases
State v. Kramsvogel, 369 N.W.2d 145 (Wis. 1985). “(1) Whoever intentionally alters indicia of price or value of merchandise or who takes and carries away, transfers, conceals or retains possession of merchandise held for resale by a merchant without his consent and with intent to deprive the merchant permanently of possession,…”
State v. Dietzen, 474 N.W.2d 753 (Wis. Ct. App. 1991).
— Wis. Stat. § 943.50(1m) — 3 cases
State v. Lee, 458 N.W.2d 562 (Wis. Ct. App. 1990). “We must examine what McDonnell knew at the time he confronted and temporarily detained Lee in order to determine whether McDonnell had probable cause to believe that Lee had violated sec. 943.50, Stats. Since the historical facts are undisputed, this is a legal matter, which we…”
State v. Autumn Marie Love Lopez (Wis. 2019).
State v. Autumn Marie Love Lopez (Wis. 2019).
— Wis. Stat. § 943.50(1m)(a) — 2 cases
State v. Autumn Marie Love Lopez (Wis. 2019).
State v. Autumn Marie Love Lopez (Wis. 2019).
— Wis. Stat. § 943.50(1m)(b) — 3 cases
State v. Diamond J. Arberry (Wis. 2018).
State v. Diamond J. Arberry (Wis. 2018).
State v. Holsonback, 722 N.W.2d 401 (Wis. Ct. App. 2006).
— Wis. Stat. § 943.50(1m)(c) — 1 case
State v. Lopez, 922 N.W.2d 855 (Wis. Ct. App. 2018). “As indicated above, by aggregating the seven alleged acts, the State was able to charge Lopez and Rodriguez with a class I felony under Wis. Stat. § 943.50 (4)(bf). If the State may not aggregate the seven separate alleged incidents of retail theft, the State may, at most,…”
— Wis. Stat. § 943.50(1m)(d) — 2 cases
State v. Diamond J. Arberry (Wis. 2018).
State v. Diamond J. Arberry (Wis. 2018).
— Wis. Stat. § 943.50(2) — 1 case
Peters v. Menard, Inc., 589 N.W.2d 395 (Wis. 1999). “Montabon presiding, entered summary judgment in favor of defendants API and Menard, finding that they were immune from liability under subsection (3) of Wisconsin's retail theft statute, Wis. Stat. § 943.50 . The court also determined that "no reasonable fact finder could…”
— Wis. Stat. § 943.50(3) — 6 cases
Peters v. Menard, Inc., 589 N.W.2d 395 (Wis. 1999). “Montabon presiding, entered summary judgment in favor of defendants API and Menard, finding that they were immune from liability under subsection (3) of Wisconsin's retail theft statute, Wis. Stat. § 943.50 . The court also determined that "no reasonable fact finder could…”
Miller v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 580 N.W.2d 233 (Wis. 1998). “This case presents two issues: first, whether Wisconsin recognizes the tort of negligent hiring, training or supervision and, if so, whether the elements of that tort were satisfied in this case so that the jury's award of compensatory and punitive damages was appropriate; and…”
Johnson v. K-Mart Enter., Inc., 297 N.W.2d 74 (Wis. Ct. App. 1980). “: (1) A merchant or merchant’s adult employee (who has) (2) Probable cause (for believing that a person has violated sec. 943.50, Stats., may) (3) Detain suspect in a reasonable manner, (4) For a reasonable length of time (to) (5) Deliver suspect to a peace officer.”
Hainz v. Shopko Stores, Inc., 359 N.W.2d 397 (Wis. Ct. App. 1984). “Shopko claimed immunity from civil liability for the actions of their employees under sec. 943.50(3), Stats. At the close of the plaintiffs’ case, Shopko moved to dismiss on the ground that there was no credible evidence to support the claim that the plaintiffs were unreasonably…”
State v. Lee, 458 N.W.2d 562 (Wis. Ct. App. 1990). “We must examine what McDonnell knew at the time he confronted and temporarily detained Lee in order to determine whether McDonnell had probable cause to believe that Lee had violated sec. 943.50, Stats. Since the historical facts are undisputed, this is a legal matter, which we…”
— Wis. Stat. § 943.50(4) — 1 case
State Law Enf't Standards Bd. v. Vill. of Lyndon Station, 295 N.W.2d 818 (Wis. Ct. App. 1980).
— Wis. Stat. § 943.50(4)(a) — 3 cases
Demmith v. Wisconsin Jud. Conf., 480 N.W.2d 502 (Wis. 1992).
State v. Flowers, 586 N.W.2d 175 (Wis. Ct. App. 1998).
State v. Lopez, 922 N.W.2d 855 (Wis. Ct. App. 2018). “As indicated above, by aggregating the seven alleged acts, the State was able to charge Lopez and Rodriguez with a class I felony under Wis. Stat. § 943.50 (4)(bf). If the State may not aggregate the seven separate alleged incidents of retail theft, the State may, at most,…”
— Wis. Stat. § 943.50(4)(b) — 1 case
State v. Lee, 458 N.W.2d 562 (Wis. Ct. App. 1990). “We must examine what McDonnell knew at the time he confronted and temporarily detained Lee in order to determine whether McDonnell had probable cause to believe that Lee had violated sec. 943.50, Stats. Since the historical facts are undisputed, this is a legal matter, which we…”
— Wis. Stat. § 943.50(4)(bf) — 2 cases
State v. Autumn Marie Love Lopez (Wis. 2019).
State v. Autumn Marie Love Lopez (Wis. 2019).
— Wis. Stat. § 943.50(5) — 1 case
Shopko Stores, Inc. v. Kujak, 433 N.W.2d 618 (Wis. Ct. App. 1988). “04(k) of the La Crosse city ordinances, adopting sec. 943.50, Stats. The municipal court assessed a forfeiture of $67.”
— Wis. Stat. § 943.50(5)(b) — 1 case
Shopko Stores, Inc. v. Kujak, 433 N.W.2d 618 (Wis. Ct. App. 1988). “04(k) of the La Crosse city ordinances, adopting sec. 943.50, Stats. The municipal court assessed a forfeiture of $67.”
— Wis. Stat. § 943.50(8) — 1 case
Hainz v. Shopko Stores, Inc., 359 N.W.2d 397 (Wis. Ct. App. 1984). “Shopko claimed immunity from civil liability for the actions of their employees under sec. 943.50(3), Stats. At the close of the plaintiffs’ case, Shopko moved to dismiss on the ground that there was no credible evidence to support the claim that the plaintiffs were unreasonably…”
— Wis. Stat. § 943.50(lm) — 2 cases
Peters v. Menard, Inc., 589 N.W.2d 395 (Wis. 1999). “Montabon presiding, entered summary judgment in favor of defendants API and Menard, finding that they were immune from liability under subsection (3) of Wisconsin's retail theft statute, Wis. Stat. § 943.50 . The court also determined that "no reasonable fact finder could…”
State v. Flowers, 586 N.W.2d 175 (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.