Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 968.10 (2026)
Searches and seizures; when authorized
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
968.10968.10 Searches and seizures; when authorized. A search of a person, object or place may be made and things may be seized when the search is made:
968.10(5)(5) Pursuant to a search during an authorized temporary questioning as provided in s. 968.25; or
968.10 NoteNOTE: See the notes to article I, section 11, of the Wisconsin Constitution.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1976–2025 · leading case: State v. Sveum, 2010 WI 92 (Wis. 2010).
State v. Sveum, 2010 WI 92 (Wis. 2010). “¶ 115 Because the court Order authorizing the installation of the GPS failed to authorize "a search of a person, object or place" and a seizure "[p]ursuant to a valid search warrant" as required by Wis. Stat. § 968.10 (3), I conclude that the installation of the GPS on Sveum's…”
State v. Young, 2006 WI 98 (Wis. 2006). “2d 685 (1969); see also Wis. Stat. §§ 968.10 (authorizing a search incident to arrest) and 968.”
State v. Schwegler, 490 N.W.2d 292 (Wis. Ct. App. 1992). “The state argues that the humane officer acted within her inspection authority, resulting in a search that, although warrantless, was permissible under sec. 968.10(4), Stats., and reasonable under the fourth amendment.”
State v. Derik J. Wantland, 2014 WI 58 (Wis. 2014). “at 222 ; see also Wis. Stat. § 968.10 (2). ¶21 "The scope of a search is generally defined by its expressed object.”
State v. Bobby L. Tate, 2014 WI 89 (Wis. 2014). “§ 968.10(3) authorizes searches pursuant to a valid warrant, and Wis.”
State v. Jensen, 2011 WI App 3 (Wis. 2010). “Wis. Stat. § 968.10 (2). A consent search is constitutionally reasonable to the extent that the search remains within the bounds of the actual consent.”
State v. Mazur, 280 N.W.2d 194 (Wis. 1979). “Sec. 968.10(2), Stats. (1975) reads: "Searches and seizures; when authorized.”
State v. Betterley, 529 N.W.2d 216 (Wis. 1995). “[6] For the reasons set forth, I conclude that the search of the property box and the seizure of the ring without a warrant were, under the circumstances of this case, in violation of sec. 968.10, Stats. 1991-92, Art. I, sec.”
State v. Greene, 591 P.2d 1362 (Or. 1979). “See Platt, A Legislative Statement of Warrantless Search Law: Poaching in Sacred Judicial Preserves? 52 Or.”
State v. Goetsch, 519 N.W.2d 634 (Wis. Ct. App. 1994). “Section 968.10(2), STATS.; Kelly v. State, 75 Wis.”
State v. King, 418 N.W.2d 11 (Wis. Ct. App. 1987). “, which provides that a person may be "arrested” for violation of traffic regulations, with sec. 968.10(1), Stats., which authorizes officers to perform searches incident to "lawful arrest[s],” and asserts that the former statute is much more restrictive than the latter.”
State v. O'NEILL, 359 N.W.2d 906 (Wis. 1984). “I am of the opinion that a determination of whether an officer did not have consent pursuant to sec. 968.10, Stats., or consent or exigent circumstances pursuant to the fourth amendment of the United States Constitution [2] or Article I, sec.”
— Wis. Stat. § 968.10(1) — 1 case
State v. King, 418 N.W.2d 11 (Wis. Ct. App. 1987). “, which provides that a person may be "arrested” for violation of traffic regulations, with sec. 968.10(1), Stats., which authorizes officers to perform searches incident to "lawful arrest[s],” and asserts that the former statute is much more restrictive than the latter.”
— Wis. Stat. § 968.10(2) — 2 cases
State v. Mazur, 280 N.W.2d 194 (Wis. 1979). “Sec. 968.10(2), Stats. (1975) reads: "Searches and seizures; when authorized.”
State v. Goetsch, 519 N.W.2d 634 (Wis. Ct. App. 1994). “Section 968.10(2), STATS.; Kelly v. State, 75 Wis.”
— Wis. Stat. § 968.10(3) — 1 case
State v. Bobby L. Tate, 2014 WI 89 (Wis. 2014). “§ 968.10(3) authorizes searches pursuant to a valid warrant, and Wis.”
— Wis. Stat. § 968.10(4) — 1 case
State v. Schwegler, 490 N.W.2d 292 (Wis. Ct. App. 1992). “The state argues that the humane officer acted within her inspection authority, resulting in a search that, although warrantless, was permissible under sec. 968.10(4), Stats., and reasonable under the fourth amendment.”
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.