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

Wis. Stat. § 968.29 (2026)

Authorization for disclosure and use of intercepted wire, electronic or oral communications

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
968.29968.29 Authorization for disclosure and use of intercepted wire, electronic or oral communications.
968.29(1)(1) Any investigative or law enforcement officer who, by any means authorized by ss. 968.28 to 968.37 or 18 USC 2510 to 2520, has obtained knowledge of the contents of any wire, electronic or oral communication, or evidence derived therefrom, may disclose the contents to another investigative or law enforcement officer only to the extent that the disclosure is appropriate to the proper performance of the official duties of the officer making or receiving the disclosure.
968.29(2)(2) Any investigative or law enforcement officer who, by any means authorized by ss. 968.28 to 968.37 or 18 USC 2510 to 2520, has obtained knowledge of the contents of any wire, electronic or oral communication or evidence derived therefrom may use the contents only to the extent the use is appropriate to the proper performance of the officer’s official duties.
968.29(3)(3) 
968.29(3)(a)(a) Any person who has received, by any means authorized by ss. 968.28 to 968.37 or 18 USC 2510 to 2520 or by a like statute of any other state, any information concerning a wire, electronic or oral communication or evidence derived therefrom intercepted in accordance with ss. 968.28 to 968.37, may disclose the contents of that communication or that derivative evidence only while giving testimony under oath or affirmation in any proceeding in any court or before any magistrate or grand jury in this state, or in any court of the United States or of any state, or in any federal or state grand jury proceeding.
968.29(3)(b)(b) In addition to the disclosure provisions of par. (a), any person who has received, in the manner described under s. 968.31 (2) (b), any information concerning a wire, electronic or oral communication or evidence derived therefrom, may disclose the contents of that communication or that derivative evidence while giving testimony under oath or affirmation in any proceeding described in par. (a) in which a person is accused of any act constituting a felony, and only if the party who consented to the interception is available to testify at the proceeding or if another witness is available to authenticate the recording.
968.29(4)(4) No otherwise privileged wire, electronic or oral communication intercepted in accordance with, or in violation of, ss. 968.28 to 968.37 or 18 USC 2510 to 2520, may lose its privileged character.
968.29(5)(5) When an investigative or law enforcement officer, while engaged in intercepting wire, electronic or oral communications in the manner authorized, intercepts wire, electronic or oral communications relating to offenses other than those specified in the order of authorization or approval, the contents thereof, and evidence derived therefrom, may be disclosed or used as provided in subs. (1) and (2). The contents and any evidence derived therefrom may be used under sub. (3) when authorized or approved by the judge who acted on the original application where the judge finds on subsequent application, made as soon as practicable but no later than 48 hours, that the contents were otherwise intercepted in accordance with ss. 968.28 to 968.37 or 18 USC 2510 to 2520 or by a like statute.
968.29 HistoryHistory: 1971 c. 40 ss. 91, 93; 1987 a. 399; 1989 a. 121, 359; 1993 a. 98; 1995 a. 30.
968.29 AnnotationEvidence of intercepted oral or wire communications can be introduced only if the interception was authorized under s. 968.30; consent by one party to the communication is not sufficient. State ex rel. Arnold v. County Court, 51 Wis. 2d 434, 187 N.W.2d 354 (1971).
968.29 AnnotationAlthough one-party consent tapes are lawful, they are not authorized by ss. 968.28 to 968.33, and therefore the contents cannot be admitted as evidence in chief, but sub. (3) does not prohibit giving such tapes to the state. State v. Waste Management of Wisconsin, Inc., 81 Wis. 2d 555, 261 N.W.2d 147 (1978).
968.29 AnnotationAlthough a taped telephone conversation was obtained without a court order, the defendant opened the door to the tape’s admission by extensive reference to the tape transcript during the defendant’s case-in-chief. State v. Albrecht, 184 Wis. 2d 287, 516 N.W.2d 776 (Ct. App. 1994).
968.29 AnnotationSub. (2) authorizes prosecutors to include intercepted communications in a criminal complaint. A prosecutor is a law enforcement officer under sub. (2), and preparation of complaints is within the prosecutor’s official duties. State v. Gilmore, 193 Wis. 2d 403, 535 N.W.2d 21 (Ct. App. 1995).
968.29 AnnotationThe state may incorporate intercepted communications in a criminal complaint if the complaint is filed under seal. Unilateral public disclosure of such communications in a complaint while not authorized does not subject the communication to suppression, but may entitle the defendant to remedies under s. 968.31. State v. Gilmore, 201 Wis. 2d 820, 549 N.W.2d 401 (1996), 94-0123.
968.29 AnnotationThe state may use one-party consent recordings of criminal activity, the disclosure of which is not authorized under sub. (3) (b), if the evidence inadvertently falls within the “plain hearing” of law enforcement officers conducting authorized surveillance. State v. Gil, 208 Wis. 2d 531, 561 N.W.2d 760 (Ct. App. 1997), 95-3347.
968.29 AnnotationSince interception by government agents of an informant’s telephone call was exclusively done by federal agents and was lawful under federal law, Wisconsin law did not govern its admissibility into evidence in a federal prosecution, notwithstanding that the telephone call may have been a privileged communication under Wisconsin law. United States v. Beni, 397 F. Supp. 1086 (1975).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1971–2021 · leading case: State v. Gilmore
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Gilmore, 549 N.W.2d 401 (Wis. 1996). · cites it 71× “The court of appeals reversed, holding that Wis. Stat. § 968.29 (1993-94) 1 does not preclude a prosecutor from including electronically intercepted communications in a criminal complaint and more specifically that Wis.”
State v. Popenhagen, 2008 WI 55 (Wis. 2008). · cites it 6× “With regard to the latter, Wis. Stat. § 968.29 (3) sets out parameters that must be met when conducting a wiretap before such evidence can be disclosed.”
State v. Waste Mgmt. of Wisconsin, Inc., 261 N.W.2d 147 (Wis. 1978). · cites it 6× “But defendant contends that this turnover is prohibited by sec. 968.29, Stats. Subsections (1), (2) and (5) of that *572 statute authorize the disclosure of the contents of authorized interceptions by law enforcement authorities for enumerated investigatory purposes.”
State v. Riley, 2005 WI App 203 (Wis. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 8× “Pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 968.29 (3)(b), these lawful interceptions *250 are then admissible in court proceedings in which a person is accused of a felony, provided the party who consented to the interception is available to testify at the proceeding or another witness is…”
State v. Gil, 561 N.W.2d 760 (Wis. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 14× “However, the surveillance law then in effect, § 968.29(3)(b), STATS., 1993-94, stated that law enforcement could only use one-party consent recordings if the defendant was "accused of any act constituting a felony under ch.”
State Ex Rel. Arnold v. Cnty. Court of Rock Cnty., 187 N.W.2d 354 (Wis. 1971). · cites it 5× “Such judge may authorize the use of such interception as evidence if he finds the interception was otherwise in accordance with the state and federal electronic surveillance laws, sec. 968.29, Stats. The act provides in sec.”
State v. Duchow, 2008 WI 57 (Wis. 2008). · cites it 4× “However, the court of appeals also concluded that, notwithstanding the statements' lawful interception, the statements could not be admitted at trial because they were *7 not intercepted in accord with the "under color of law" requirement of Wis.”
State v. House, 2007 WI 79 (Wis. 2007). · cites it 4× “Wis. Stat. § 968.29 (5) provides that when an agent intercepts: communications relating to offenses other than those specified in the order.”
State v. Sveum, 2009 WI App 81 (Wis. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 3× “" See Wis. Stat. § 968.29 ; State v. Gilmore, 201 Wis.”
State v. Curtis, 582 N.W.2d 409 (Wis. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 2× “2d 147, 154 (1978) (holding one-party consent tapes lawful but not admissible); § 968.29(3)(b), Stats. (statute created by 1989 Wisconsin Act 121, § 113, effective 1990, allowing one-party consent tapes into evidence in felony drug prosecutions).”
State v. Albrecht, 516 N.W.2d 776 (Wis. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 2× “Albrecht also contends that the trial court erred by allowing the State to play to the jury a tape recording of his incriminating statements to the undercover officer because it was obtained without a court order, in violation of §§ 968.29(3) and 968.30(8), Stats. Finally,…”
State v. Gilmore, 535 N.W.2d 21 (Wis. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 19× “This case presents an issue of first impression: whether § 968.29, Stats., allows a prosecutor to include intercepted communications in a criminal complaint.”
Show all 15 citing cases →
— Wis. Stat. § 968.29(1) — 2 cases
State v. Gilmore, 549 N.W.2d 401 (Wis. 1996). “The court of appeals reversed, holding that Wis. Stat. § 968.29 (1993-94) 1 does not preclude a prosecutor from including electronically intercepted communications in a criminal complaint and more specifically that Wis.”
State v. Gilmore, 535 N.W.2d 21 (Wis. Ct. App. 1995). “This case presents an issue of first impression: whether § 968.29, Stats., allows a prosecutor to include intercepted communications in a criminal complaint.”
— Wis. Stat. § 968.29(2) — 2 cases
State v. Gilmore, 549 N.W.2d 401 (Wis. 1996). “The court of appeals reversed, holding that Wis. Stat. § 968.29 (1993-94) 1 does not preclude a prosecutor from including electronically intercepted communications in a criminal complaint and more specifically that Wis.”
State v. Gilmore, 535 N.W.2d 21 (Wis. Ct. App. 1995). “This case presents an issue of first impression: whether § 968.29, Stats., allows a prosecutor to include intercepted communications in a criminal complaint.”
— Wis. Stat. § 968.29(3) — 4 cases
State v. Waste Mgmt. of Wisconsin, Inc., 261 N.W.2d 147 (Wis. 1978). “But defendant contends that this turnover is prohibited by sec. 968.29, Stats. Subsections (1), (2) and (5) of that *572 statute authorize the disclosure of the contents of authorized interceptions by law enforcement authorities for enumerated investigatory purposes.”
State v. Popenhagen, 2008 WI 55 (Wis. 2008). “With regard to the latter, Wis. Stat. § 968.29 (3) sets out parameters that must be met when conducting a wiretap before such evidence can be disclosed.”
State v. Albrecht, 516 N.W.2d 776 (Wis. Ct. App. 1994). “Albrecht also contends that the trial court erred by allowing the State to play to the jury a tape recording of his incriminating statements to the undercover officer because it was obtained without a court order, in violation of §§ 968.29(3) and 968.30(8), Stats. Finally,…”
State Ex Rel. Arnold v. Cnty. Court of Rock Cnty., 187 N.W.2d 354 (Wis. 1971). “Such judge may authorize the use of such interception as evidence if he finds the interception was otherwise in accordance with the state and federal electronic surveillance laws, sec. 968.29, Stats. The act provides in sec.”
— Wis. Stat. § 968.29(3)(a) — 2 cases
State v. Gilmore, 549 N.W.2d 401 (Wis. 1996). “The court of appeals reversed, holding that Wis. Stat. § 968.29 (1993-94) 1 does not preclude a prosecutor from including electronically intercepted communications in a criminal complaint and more specifically that Wis.”
State v. Gilmore, 535 N.W.2d 21 (Wis. Ct. App. 1995). “This case presents an issue of first impression: whether § 968.29, Stats., allows a prosecutor to include intercepted communications in a criminal complaint.”
— Wis. Stat. § 968.29(3)(b) — 3 cases
State v. Gil, 561 N.W.2d 760 (Wis. Ct. App. 1997). “However, the surveillance law then in effect, § 968.29(3)(b), STATS., 1993-94, stated that law enforcement could only use one-party consent recordings if the defendant was "accused of any act constituting a felony under ch.”
State v. Curtis, 582 N.W.2d 409 (Wis. Ct. App. 1998). “2d 147, 154 (1978) (holding one-party consent tapes lawful but not admissible); § 968.29(3)(b), Stats. (statute created by 1989 Wisconsin Act 121, § 113, effective 1990, allowing one-party consent tapes into evidence in felony drug prosecutions).”
State v. Riley, 2005 WI App 203 (Wis. Ct. App. 2005). “Pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 968.29 (3)(b), these lawful interceptions *250 are then admissible in court proceedings in which a person is accused of a felony, provided the party who consented to the interception is available to testify at the proceeding or another witness is…”
— Wis. Stat. § 968.29(5) — 1 case
State v. Billy Joe Cannon (Wis. Ct. App. 2021).
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.