Wisconsin Statutes

Wis. Stat. § 961.42 (2026)

Prohibited acts B — penalties

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
961.42961.42Prohibited acts B — penalties.
961.42(1)(1)It is unlawful for any person knowingly to keep or maintain any store, shop, warehouse, dwelling, building, vehicle, boat, aircraft or other structure or place, which is resorted to by persons using controlled substances in violation of this chapter for the purpose of using these substances, or which is used for manufacturing, keeping or delivering them in violation of this chapter.
961.42(2)(2)Any person who violates this section is guilty of a Class I felony.
961.42 HistoryHistory: 1971 c. 219; 1995 a. 448 s. 267; Stats. 1995 s. 961.42; 1997 a. 283; 2001 a. 109.
961.42 Annotation“Keeping” a substance under s. 161.42 (1) [now sub. (1)] means more than simple possession; it means keeping for the purpose of warehousing or storage for ultimate manufacture or delivery. State v. Brooks, 124 Wis. 2d 349, 369 N.W.2d 183 (Ct. App. 1985).
961.42 AnnotationWarehousing or storage under Brooks, 124 Wis. 2d 349 (1985), does not encompass merely possessing an item while transporting it. Cocaine was not warehoused or stored when the cocaine was carried in the defendant’s truck while moving from one location to another. State v. Slagle, 2007 WI App 117, 300 Wis. 2d 662, 731 N.W.2d 284, 06-0775.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 27 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1999–2025 · leading case: State v. Artic, 2010 WI 83 (Wis. 2010).
State v. Artic, 2010 WI 83 (Wis. 2010). · cites it 8× “¶ 18 On February 3, 2006, Artic was charged with one count of maintaining a drug trafficking place, contrary to Wis. Stat. § 961.42 (1), and one count of possession with intent to deliver cocaine as party to a crime, contrary to Wis.”
State v. Malcom, 2001 WI App 291 (Wis. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 18× “Malcom appeals from a judgment, reciting two convictions: maintaining a drug trafficking residence and maintaining a bar resorted to by persons using controlled substances, *406 both in violation of Wis. Stat. § 961.42 (1) (1999-2000). 1 Malcom challenges his conviction on two…”
State v. Sloan, 2007 WI App 146 (Wis. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 9× “§ 961.42; possession of drug paraphernalia, violating WIS.”
State v. House, 2007 WI 79 (Wis. 2007). · cites it 10× “41 (1m) (possession of controlled substances with intent to manufacture, distribute or deliver), and Wis. Stat. § 961.42 (keeping a place for using, manufacturing, keeping or delivering controlled substances).”
State v. Vorburger, 2002 WI 105 (Wis. 2002). · cites it 4× “11; knowingly maintaining a place used for keeping controlled substances, contrary to Wis. Stat. § 961.42 ; knowingly possessing *553 psilocin, contrary to Wis.”
Ardonis Greer v. Wayne J. Wiedenhoeft, 2014 WI 19 (Wis. 2014). · cites it 4× “63(1)(c) (2003-04), one count of maintaining a drug trafficking place while armed as a repeater, contrary to Wis. Stat. §§ 961.42 (1), 961.48(1)(b), and 939.”
State v. Dukes, 2007 WI App 175 (Wis. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 4× “63 (2003-04), 1 and keeping a drug house, as a party to the crime, contrary to Wis. Stat. §§ 961.42 (1) and 939.05. Dukes also appeals the order denying his post-conviction motion.”
State v. Raflik, 2001 WI 129 (Wis. 2001). · cites it 4× “41 (1m)(g)1; and maintaining a drug house, contrary to Wis. Stat. § 961.42 . Raflik filed a motion to suppress the evidence found pursuant to the warrant on the grounds that the State had failed to make a contemporaneous record of the warrant application, in violation of Wis.”
State v. White, 2008 WI App 96 (Wis. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 5× “(2005-06), 1 and the information added a charge of maintaining a *803 drug house in violation of Wis. Stat. § 961.42 (1). 2 The circuit court concluded that, although the two charges might be transactionally related, it was unfair to permit the addition of the drug-house charge…”
State v. Cain, 2012 WI 68 (Wis. 2012). · cites it 2× “Consequently, a criminal complaint was filed on December 7, 2007, charging Cain with four separate crimes: 1) maintaining a drug trafficking place in violation of Wisconsin Statutes section 961.42(1); 2) possession with intent to deliver tetrahydrocannabinol ("THC") 2 in an…”
State v. Jones, 2005 WI App 26 (Wis. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “23 , and charged O'Neal with knowingly keeping a vehicle for controlled substances use pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 961.42 (1). These charges were repeated in the informations filed against O'Neal and Jones following their bindover at preliminary hearing.”
State v. Goetz, 2001 WI App 294 (Wis. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 3× “Goetz was not arrested. She was later charged with: (1) possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver, contrary to Wis.”
— Wis. Stat. § 961.42(1) — 8 cases
State v. Cain, 2012 WI 68 (Wis. 2012). “Consequently, a criminal complaint was filed on December 7, 2007, charging Cain with four separate crimes: 1) maintaining a drug trafficking place in violation of Wisconsin Statutes section 961.42(1); 2) possession with intent to deliver tetrahydrocannabinol ("THC") 2 in an…”
State v. Williams, 2012 WI 59 (Wis. 2012).
State v. White, 2008 WI App 96 (Wis. Ct. App. 2008). “(2005-06), 1 and the information added a charge of maintaining a *803 drug house in violation of Wis. Stat. § 961.42 (1). 2 The circuit court concluded that, although the two charges might be transactionally related, it was unfair to permit the addition of the drug-house charge…”
State v. Malcom, 2001 WI App 291 (Wis. Ct. App. 2001). “Malcom appeals from a judgment, reciting two convictions: maintaining a drug trafficking residence and maintaining a bar resorted to by persons using controlled substances, *406 both in violation of Wis. Stat. § 961.42 (1) (1999-2000). 1 Malcom challenges his conviction on two…”
State v. Goetz, 2001 WI App 294 (Wis. Ct. App. 2001). “Goetz was not arrested. She was later charged with: (1) possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver, contrary to Wis.”
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.