Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 968.135 (2026)
Subpoena for documents
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
968.135968.135 Subpoena for documents. Upon the request of the attorney general or a district attorney and upon a showing of probable cause under s. 968.12, a court shall issue a subpoena requiring the production of documents, as specified in s. 968.13 (2). The documents shall be returnable to the court which issued the subpoena. Motions to the court, including, but not limited to, motions to quash or limit the subpoena, shall be addressed to the court which issued the subpoena. Any person who unlawfully refuses to produce the documents may be compelled to do so as provided in ch. 785. This section does not limit or affect any other subpoena authority provided by law.
968.135 AnnotationA bank’s voluntary surrender of records other than those demanded on the subpoena provided no basis for suppression. State v. Swift, 173 Wis. 2d 870, 496 N.W.2d 713 (Ct. App. 1993).
968.135 AnnotationThis section protects the interests of persons whose documents are sought in addition to protecting the interests of the person on whom a subpoena is served. The defendant had standing to challenge subpoenas issued to produce the defendant’s bank records. A person has standing to seek judicial intervention when that person has a personal stake in the outcome and is directly affected by the issues in controversy. State v. Popenhagen, 2008 WI 55, 309 Wis. 2d 601, 749 N.W.2d 611, 06-1114.
968.135 AnnotationThis section encompasses a motion to suppress documents in violation of this section and to suppress statements directly derived from those documents. The circuit court has discretion to suppress or allow evidence obtained in violation of a statute that does not specifically require suppression of evidence obtained contrary to the statute, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case and the objectives of the statute. State v. Popenhagen, 2008 WI 55, 309 Wis. 2d 601, 749 N.W.2d 611, 06-1114.
968.135 AnnotationIf a person were permitted to bring a motion to quash the subpoena for bank documents unlawfully obtained but not permitted to bring a motion to suppress incriminating statements derived directly from the unlawfully obtained bank documents, the person would not get the full benefit of the protections of the statute, and the underlying objectives of the statute would be defeated. State v. Popenhagen, 2008 WI 55, 309 Wis. 2d 601, 749 N.W.2d 611, 06-1114.
968.135 AnnotationSpecific statutory authorization was not necessary for a judge to issue an order that authorized the procedures used to track the defendant’s cell phone because the order was supported by probable cause. Nonetheless, the order did comply with the spirit of this section and s. 968.12. State v. Tate, 2014 WI 89, 357 Wis. 2d 172, 849 N.W.2d 798, 12-0336.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 25
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1993–2026 · leading case: State v. Popenhagen, 2008 WI 55 (Wis. 2008).
State v. Popenhagen, 2008 WI 55 (Wis. 2008). “[1] The circuit court granted the defendant's motion to suppress bank documents that police obtained pursuant to a subpoena issued without a showing of probable cause in violation of Wis. Stat. § 968.135 (2005-06), [2] as well as incriminating statements that the defendant made…”
State v. Bobby L. Tate, 2014 WI 89 (Wis. 2014). “5 Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the court of appeals. I. BACKGROUND ¶3 On the evening of June 9, 2009, law enforcement responded to a homicide outside of Mother's Foods Market/Magic Cell Phones at 2879 N.”
Custodian of Records for the Legislative Tech. Servs. Bureau v. State, 2004 WI 65 (Wis. 2004). “2d 653, ¶ 22 , we turn to Wis. Stat. § 968.135 which describes the quantum of proof required to issue a subpoena duces tecum in a criminal investigation.”
State v. Popenhagen, 2007 WI App 16 (Wis. Ct. App. 2006). “§ 968.135. [2] The subpoenas were served on two banks, and the banks turned over all of Popenhagen's records, including bank statements and copies of deposit slips and cancelled checks.”
State Ex Rel. Two Unnamed v. Peterson, 2015 WI 85 (Wis. 2015). “Nestled among these search warrant statutes is Wis. Stat. § 968.135 , which deals with "Subpoena for documents.”
State v. Nicolas Subdiaz-Osorio, 2014 WI 87 (Wis. 2014). “Wis. Stat. § 968.135 . 18 "Privacy comes at a cost.”
State v. Sveum, 2010 WI 92 (Wis. 2010). “¶ 112 Popenhagen involved a subpoena that directed the production of documents; the subpoena violated Wis. Stat. § 968.135 . The court concluded that because the subpoena contravened the statute, the evidence would be suppressed.”
Custodian of Records for the Legislative Tech. Servs. Bureau v. State, 2004 WI 149 (Wis. 2004). “Attention has been called to our *77 application and construction of Wis. Stat. § 968.135 (2001-02) [1] during the John Doe proceeding and to our application of Fourth Amendment principles to the subpoena that was before us.”
Ameritech Corp., Cross-Appellee v. E. Michael McCann Dist. Attorney of Milwaukee Cnty., Wisconsin, 403 F.3d 908 (7th Cir. 2005). “The District Attorney insists that he obtains terminating AMA reports under Wis. Stat. § 968.135 rather than under any federal statute.”
Ameritech Corp. v. McCann, 308 F. Supp. 2d 911 (E.D. Wis. 2004). “Reddin also testified that he believed that Wis. Stat. § 968.135 is the authority for obtaining AMA reports and that he did not believe that the ECPA preempted that statute.”
State v. Swift, 496 N.W.2d 713 (Wis. Ct. App. 1993). “The court also concluded that although the subpoenaed documents were not returned to the court, this technical violation of sec. 968.135, Stats., did not require suppression.”
State v. Hillary, 2017 WI App 67 (Wis. Ct. App. 2017). “Based upon Winger's affidavit and pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 968.135 (2015-16), 1 the Honorable James Carlson issued a subpoena based upon "probable cause" for the electrical usage records Winger requested.”
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.