Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 968.255 (2026)
Strip searches
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
968.255(1)(a)2.2. A person arrested for any misdemeanor under s. 167.30 (1), 940.60, 941.20 (1), 941.23, 941.231, 941.237, 948.60, or 948.61 or s. 940.19, 2023 stats.
968.255(1)(a)3.3. A person taken into custody under s. 938.19 and there are reasonable grounds to believe the juvenile has committed an act which if committed by an adult would be covered under subd. 1. or 2.
968.255(1)(a)4.4. A person arrested for any misdemeanor not specified in subd. 2., any other violation of state law punishable by forfeiture or any local ordinance if there is probable cause to believe the person is concealing a weapon or a thing which may constitute evidence of the offense for which he or she is detained.
968.255(1)(a)5.5. A person arrested or otherwise lawfully detained or taken into custody, if the person will be incarcerated, imprisoned, or otherwise detained in a jail or prison with one or more other persons. Subject to subd. 3., for the purpose of this subdivision, “detainee” does not include a juvenile who is taken into custody under s. 938.19 and held in custody under s. 938.209.
968.255(1)(ag)(ag) “Jail” includes municipal prisons and rehabilitation facilities established under s. 59.53 (8) by whatever name they are known, but does not include lockup facilities.
968.255(1)(ar)(ar) “Lockup facilities” means those facilities of a temporary place of detention at a police station that are used exclusively to hold persons under arrest until they can be brought before a court and that are not used to hold persons pending trial who have appeared in court or have been committed to imprisonment for nonpayment of fines or forfeitures.
968.255(1)(b)(b) “Strip search” means a search in which a detainee’s genitals, pubic area, buttock or anus, or a female detainee’s breast, is uncovered and either is exposed to view or is touched by a person conducting the search, except that if the detainee is a person defined in par. (a) 5., “strip search” means a search in which a detainee’s genitals, pubic area, buttock or anus, or a female detainee’s breast, is uncovered and exposed to view but is not touched by a person conducting the search unless the touching is necessary to gain the detainee’s cooperation with the search or unless the touching is necessary to assist a disabled detainee’s cooperation with the search.
968.255(2)(am)(am) The person conducting the search is of the same sex as the detainee, unless the search is a body cavity search conducted under sub. (3).
968.255(2)(d)(d) A person conducting the search has obtained the prior written permission of the chief, sheriff or law enforcement administrator of the jurisdiction where the person is detained, or his or her designee, unless there is probable cause to believe that the detainee is concealing a weapon.
968.255(2)(e)(e) A person conducting the search prepares a report identifying the person detained, all persons conducting the search, the time, date and place of the search and the written authorization required by par. (d), and provides a copy of the report to the detainee.
968.255(3)(3) No person other than a physician, physician assistant or registered nurse licensed to practice in this state may conduct a body cavity search. A physician, physician assistant, or registered nurse acting under this section, the employer of any such person, and any health care facility where the search is conducted have immunity from civil or criminal liability under s. 895.535.
968.255(4)(4) A person who intentionally violates this section may be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than 90 days or both.
968.255(5)(5) This section does not limit the rights of any person to civil damages or injunctive relief.
968.255(6)(6) Each law enforcement agency, as defined in s. 165.83 (1) (b), and each facility where a strip search may be conducted pursuant to this section, shall establish written policies and procedures concerning strip searches which at least meet the minimum requirements of this section and shall provide annual training regarding the policies and procedures to any employee or agent of the agency or facility who may conduct a strip search.
968.255(7)(a)(a) Is serving a sentence, pursuant to a conviction, in a jail, state prison or house of correction.
968.255(7)(b)(b) Is placed in or transferred to a juvenile correctional facility, as defined in s. 938.02 (10p), or a secured residential care center for children and youth, as defined in s. 938.02 (15g).
968.255 HistoryHistory: 1979 c. 240; 1981 c. 297; 1987 a. 332; 1991 a. 17; 1993 a. 95, 105; 1995 a. 77, 154; 1997 a. 35; 1999 a. 9; 2001 a. 109; 2005 a. 344; 2011 a. 35; 2013 a. 317; 2015 a. 149; 2015 a. 195 s. 83; 2015 a. 206, 238; 2025 a. 24 s. 93.
968.255 AnnotationA visual body cavity search is more intrusive than a strip search. It is not objectively reasonable for police to conclude that consent to a strip search includes consent to scrutiny of body cavities. State v. Wallace, 2002 WI App 61, 251 Wis. 2d 625, 642 N.W.2d 549, 00-3524.
968.255 AnnotationThis section is a regulatory statute aimed at controlling law enforcement officers’ conduct via criminal penalties. It does not mention probable cause and authorizes no motions to quash or limit the search. When there was no violation of any constitutional right but merely of the statute itself, the violation of the statute provided no basis for a suppression motion. State v. Minett, 2014 WI App 40, 353 Wis. 2d 484, 846 N.W.2d 831, 13-0634.
968.255 AnnotationIntrusive searches of the mouth, nose, or ears are not covered by sub. (3). However, searches of those body orifices should be conducted by medical personnel to comply with the 4th and 5th amendments. 71 Atty. Gen. 12.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1998–2022 · leading case: State v. Minett, 2014 WI App 40 (Wis. Ct. App. 2014).
State v. Minett, 2014 WI App 40 (Wis. Ct. App. 2014). “Jimmie Minett argues that the circuit court should have granted his motion to suppress evidence found in a strip search because the police violated provisions of the statute regulating strip *486 searches, Wis. Stat. § 968.255 (2011-12). 1 Because suppression of evidence is not…”
Shaw v. Leatherberry, 2005 WI 163 (Wis. 2005). “Shaw filed an action in Dane County Circuit Court on November 4, 1998, which alleged four claims for relief: (1) that the deputies subjected her to an illegal strip search under Wis. Stat. § 968.255 (1997-98); (2) that the deputies tortiously assaulted and battered her; (3) that…”
Moore v. Vagnini, 673 F. App'x 584 (7th Cir. 2017). “See Wis. Stat. § 968.255 (2)(b), (3). Civil-rights lawsuits brought in Wisconsin under 42 U.”
Brown v. Short, 729 F. Supp. 2d 125 (D.D.C. 2010). “070(1) (West 2009); Wis. Stat. Ann. § 968.255 (l)(b) (West 2009).”
State v. Simmons, 585 N.W.2d 165 (Wis. Ct. App. 1998). “1 The trial court found that because there was no body cavity search the search did not violate § 968.255(3), Stats., when it was conducted by a person other than a physician, physician assistant or nurse.”
State v. Wallace, 2002 WI App 61 (Wis. Ct. App. 2002). “The court found that police had information that Wallace was an Illinois resident, and that the Beloit Police Department had a policy which requires out-of-state residents to post cash bond before being released.”
State v. Ford, 927 N.W.2d 930 (Wis. Ct. App. 2019). “In his motion to suppress, Ford also raised the argument that the x-rays taken at Froedtert Hospital prior to the removal of the plastic bag violated Wis. Stat. § 968.255 (2)(c) (2017-18), which prohibits making a visual reproduction of a strip search.”
Jump v. Vill. of Shorewood (E.D. Wis. 2021). “) The plaintiffs argue Officer Taraboi violated Wis. Stat. § 968.255 (1)(b), which defines a “strip search” as a search in which a detainee’s genitals, pubic area, or buttock is exposed.”
State v. Kristopher D. Mitchell (Wis. Ct. App. 2022). “§ 968.255. Payano-Roman recognizes that although medical testimony may be necessary in many cases, not every case will require it.”
Solomon v. Sobek (E.D. Wis. 2020). “While Wisconsin law prohibits strip searches that are not approved by the sheriff or designee and conducted by either a physician, a physician’s assistant, or a registered nurse, see Wis. Stat. § 968.255 , the plaintiff has not asserted a violation of state law.”
— Wis. Stat. § 968.255(1)(b) — 1 case
State v. Ford, 927 N.W.2d 930 (Wis. Ct. App. 2019). “In his motion to suppress, Ford also raised the argument that the x-rays taken at Froedtert Hospital prior to the removal of the plastic bag violated Wis. Stat. § 968.255 (2)(c) (2017-18), which prohibits making a visual reproduction of a strip search.”
— Wis. Stat. § 968.255(2) — 1 case
State v. Wallace, 2002 WI App 61 (Wis. Ct. App. 2002). “The court found that police had information that Wallace was an Illinois resident, and that the Beloit Police Department had a policy which requires out-of-state residents to post cash bond before being released.”
— Wis. Stat. § 968.255(2)(b) — 1 case
State v. Minett, 2014 WI App 40 (Wis. Ct. App. 2014). “Jimmie Minett argues that the circuit court should have granted his motion to suppress evidence found in a strip search because the police violated provisions of the statute regulating strip *486 searches, Wis. Stat. § 968.255 (2011-12). 1 Because suppression of evidence is not…”
— Wis. Stat. § 968.255(2)(d) — 1 case
State v. Minett, 2014 WI App 40 (Wis. Ct. App. 2014). “Jimmie Minett argues that the circuit court should have granted his motion to suppress evidence found in a strip search because the police violated provisions of the statute regulating strip *486 searches, Wis. Stat. § 968.255 (2011-12). 1 Because suppression of evidence is not…”
— Wis. Stat. § 968.255(2)(e) — 1 case
State v. Minett, 2014 WI App 40 (Wis. Ct. App. 2014). “Jimmie Minett argues that the circuit court should have granted his motion to suppress evidence found in a strip search because the police violated provisions of the statute regulating strip *486 searches, Wis. Stat. § 968.255 (2011-12). 1 Because suppression of evidence is not…”
— Wis. Stat. § 968.255(3) — 1 case
State v. Simmons, 585 N.W.2d 165 (Wis. Ct. App. 1998). “1 The trial court found that because there was no body cavity search the search did not violate § 968.255(3), Stats., when it was conducted by a person other than a physician, physician assistant or nurse.”
— Wis. Stat. § 968.255(4) — 2 cases
State v. Wallace, 2002 WI App 61 (Wis. Ct. App. 2002). “The court found that police had information that Wallace was an Illinois resident, and that the Beloit Police Department had a policy which requires out-of-state residents to post cash bond before being released.”
State v. Ford, 927 N.W.2d 930 (Wis. Ct. App. 2019). “In his motion to suppress, Ford also raised the argument that the x-rays taken at Froedtert Hospital prior to the removal of the plastic bag violated Wis. Stat. § 968.255 (2)(c) (2017-18), which prohibits making a visual reproduction of a strip search.”
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.