Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 968.28 (2026)
Application for court order to intercept communications
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
968.28968.28 Application for court order to intercept communications. The attorney general together with the district attorney of any county may approve a request of an investigative or law enforcement officer to apply to the chief judge of the judicial administrative district for the county where the interception is to take place for an order authorizing or approving the interception of wire, electronic or oral communications. The chief judge may under s. 968.30 grant an order authorizing or approving the interception of wire, electronic or oral communications by investigative or law enforcement officers having responsibility for the investigation of the offense for which the application is made. The authorization shall be permitted only if the interception may provide or has provided evidence of the commission of the offense of homicide, felony murder, kidnapping, commercial gambling, bribery, extortion, dealing in controlled substances or controlled substance analogs, a computer crime that is a felony under s. 943.70, sexual exploitation of a child under s. 948.05, trafficking of a child under s. 948.051, child enticement under s. 948.07, grooming of a child for sexual activity under s. 948.072, use of a computer to facilitate a child sex crime under s. 948.075, or soliciting a child for prostitution under s. 948.08, or any conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing offenses.
968.28 HistoryHistory: 1971 c. 219; 1977 c. 449; 1983 a. 438; 1987 a. 399; 1995 a. 448; 2011 a. 271; 2025 a. 88.
968.28 AnnotationThe authorization of a wiretap for offenses not enumerated in this section did not warrant suppression of the evidence obtained from the wiretap when the order included both enumerated and non-enumerated offenses and contained sufficient probable cause for the enumerated offenses, the evidence obtained by wiretap was for enumerated offenses, and charges were brought only for enumerated offenses. State v. House, 2007 WI 79, 302 Wis. 2d 1, 734 N.W.2d 140, 05-2202.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1971–2024 · leading case: State v. House, 2007 WI 79 (Wis. 2007).
State v. House, 2007 WI 79 (Wis. 2007). “¶ 2 We determine that the circuit court erred in authorizing a wiretap for offenses not enumerated in Wis. Stat. § 968.28 . [2] However, we also determine that the authorization of a wiretap for non-enumerated offenses does not warrant suppression of the evidence obtained from…”
State Ex Rel. Two Unnamed v. Peterson, 2015 WI 85 (Wis. 2015). “Court orders for interception may be obtained only for specified offenses ranging from homicide, felony murder, and kidnapping to soliciting a child for prostitution, Wis. Stat. § 968.28 , and such orders may not exceed 30 days in duration without specific judicial extension.”
State Ex Rel. Arnold v. Cnty. Court of Rock Cnty., 187 N.W.2d 354 (Wis. 1971). “The basic authorization for an electronic eavesdropping is restricted in sec. 968.28, Stats., which requires a law enforcement officer to apply to a circuit court for an order authorizing or approving the interception of a wire or oral communication.”
Cannon v. Newport, 850 F.3d 303 (7th Cir. 2017). “The second claim is that the state trooper used the traffic violation as a pretext to stop him and execute the outstanding warrant on the 2011 gun and drug charges, which was not in the trooper’s physical possession.”
State Ex Rel. Hussong v. Froelich, 215 N.W.2d 890 (Wis. 1974). “1371 inferred jury prejudice was the harsh thirty-year sentence imposed by the jury under Texas law for the mere gift by a “militant” black of a marijuana cigarette.”
State v. Sveum, 2009 WI App 81 (Wis. Ct. App. 2009). “" See Wis. Stat. §§ 968.28 -.31. The law governs the in-court disclosure of the contents of intercepts of "electronic communications.”
State v. Smith, 419 N.W.2d 259 (Wis. Ct. App. 1987). “Smith contends that the evidence against him was obtained as the result of the police violating sec. 968.28, Stats., 1 and thus should be suppressed under sec.”
State v. Gil, 561 N.W.2d 760 (Wis. Ct. App. 1997). “The trial court then turned to specific circumstances relating to how the drug agents inadvertently captured the evidence of Gil's other criminal activity. While the court acknowledged that the surveillance law says that the State can use one-party consent surveillance evidence…”
In Re Wis. Fam. Counseling Servs. v. State, 291 N.W.2d 631 (Wis. Ct. App. 1980). “[9] Sec. 968.28, Stats. [10] State v. O'Connor, 77 Wis.”
Certain Subpoena Duces Tecum Issued to Wisconsin Fam. Counseling Servs., Inc. v. State, 291 N.W.2d 631 (Wis. Ct. App. 1980). “Sec. 968.28, Stats. State v. O’Connor, 77 Wis.”
Jacque v. City of Green Bay (E.D. Wis. 2024). “See Wis. Stat. § 968.28 ; 18 U.S.C. § 2511 . Authorization to install such a device requires a warrant signed by a judge based on a particularized finding of probable cause to believe a crime was committed or is being committed.”
Three Unnamed v. Gregory A. Peterson (Wis. 2015). “Court orders for interception may be obtained only for specified offenses ranging from homicide, felony murder, and kidnapping to soliciting a child for prostitution, Wis. Stat. § 968.28 , and such orders may not exceed 30 days in duration without specific judicial extension.”
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.