Wis. Stat. » CHAPTER 968 — COMMENCEMENT OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS
Wisconsin Statutes

Wis. Stat. § 968.22 (2026)

Effect of technical irregularities

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
968.22968.22 Effect of technical irregularities. No evidence seized under a search warrant shall be suppressed because of technical irregularities not affecting the substantial rights of the defendant.
968.22 AnnotationThe incorrect identification of a building’s address in a warrant was a technical error and did not render the resulting search unreasonable when the search made was of the building identified by the informant, which was otherwise correctly identified in the warrant. State v. Nicholson, 174 Wis. 2d 542, 497 N.W.2d 791 (Ct. App. 1993).
968.22 AnnotationMistakes on the face of a warrant were a technical irregularity under this section and the warrant met the 4th amendment standard of reasonableness when, although the warrant identified the car to be searched incorrectly two times, the executing officer attached and incorporated an affidavit that correctly identified the car three times, describing the correct color, make, model, and style of the car along with the correct license plate, and the information was based on the executing officer’s personal knowledge from prior encounters. State v. Rogers, 2008 WI App 176, 315 Wis. 2d 60, 762 N.W.2d 795, 07-1850.
968.22 NoteNOTE: See also the notes to article I, section 11, of the Wisconsin Constitution.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1975–2023 · leading case: State v. Sveum, 2010 WI 92 (Wis. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Sveum, 2010 WI 92 (Wis. 2010). · cites it 34× “Case law and Wis. Stat. § 968.22 [11] provide that "evidence must not be suppressed for a mere statutory violation or a technical irregularity of search warrant procedure unless the violation or irregularity is material or the violation or irregularity has prejudiced the…”
State v. Popenhagen, 2008 WI 55 (Wis. 2008). · cites it 24× “The decision whether to suppress evidence is informed by Wis. Stat. § 968.22 , which reads: "Effect of technical irregularities.”
State v. Tye, 2001 WI 124 (Wis. 2001). · cites it 16× “However, the State makes four arguments to support its position that the seized evidence should not be suppressed: [20] First, it relies on Wis. Stat. § 968.22 , which provides that no evidence shall be suppressed for a technical irregularity in the warrant if that irregularity…”
State v. Eason, 2001 WI 98 (Wis. 2001). · cites it 6× “Wis. Stat. § 968.22 . [24] [19] ¶ 57. Obviously, contrary to Eason's third contention, recognizing exceptions to the warrant requirement does not result in the overruling of Hoyer .”
State v. Raflik, 2001 WI 129 (Wis. 2001). · cites it 4× “The trial court found that Raflik's substantial rights had not been prejudiced, and that, under the totality of the circumstances, the failure to record the warrant application was a technical irregularity under Wis. Stat. § 968.22 . The court held that suppression was not a…”
State v. Thompson, 2012 WI 90 (Wis. 2012). · cites it 3× “Wis. Stat. § 968.22 (emphasis added). ¶ 82.”
State v. DeSmidt, 444 N.W.2d 420 (Wis. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 4× “Section 968.22, Stats., provides: "Effect of technical irregularities.”
State v. Rogers, 2008 WI App 176 (Wis. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 5× “See Wis. Stat. § 968.22 . In Rodriguez, the court held that there was no reasonable probability when (1) the affidavit in support of the warrant application correctly listed the address three times and (2) the executing officer applying for the warrant had personal knowledge of…”
State v. Nicholson, 497 N.W.2d 791 (Wis. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 2× “Section 968.22, Stats., provides that ”[n]o evidence seized under a search warrant shall be suppressed because of technical irregularities not affecting the *549 substantial rights of the defendant.”
Castle News Co. v. Cahill, 461 F. Supp. 174 (E.D. Wis. 1978). · cites it 2× “To the same effect is Wis.Stat. § 968.22 which provides that “no evidence seized under a search warrant shall be suppressed because of technical irregularities not affecting the substantial rights of the defendant.”
State v. Elam, 229 N.W.2d 664 (Wis. 1975). “1 The information in this case was not filed until February 8, 1974. On appeal, the defendant concedes that the trial court erred in suppressing the evidence for a technical violation of sec.”
State v. John J. Drachenberg, 2023 WI App 61 (Wis. Ct. App. 2023). “§ 968.22 (“No evidence seized under a search warrant shall be suppressed because of technical irregularities not affecting the substantial rights of the defendant.”
Show all 16 citing cases →
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.