Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 968.375 (2026)
Subpoenas and warrants for records or communications of customers of an electronic communication service or remote computing service provider
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
968.375968.375 Subpoenas and warrants for records or communications of customers of an electronic communication service or remote computing service provider.
968.375(1)(1) Jurisdiction. For purposes of this section, a person is considered to be doing business in this state and is subject to service and execution of process from this state, if the person makes a contract with or engages in a terms of service agreement with any other person, whether or not the other person is a resident of this state, and any part of the performance of the contract or provision of service takes place within this state on any occasion.
968.375(2)(a)(a) Upon the request of the attorney general or a district attorney and upon a showing of probable cause, a judge may issue a subpoena requiring a person who provides electronic communication service or remote computing service to disclose within a reasonable time that is established in the subpoena a record or other information pertaining to a subscriber or customer of the service, including any of the following relating to the subscriber or customer:
968.375(2)(a)3.3. Local and long distance telephone connection records, or records of session times and durations.
968.375(2)(a)5.5. Telephone or instrument number or other subscriber number or identity, including any temporarily assigned network address.
968.375(2)(a)6.6. Means and source of payment for the electronic communication service or remote computing service, including any credit card or bank account number.
968.375(2)(b)(b) A subpoena under this subsection may not require disclosure of the contents of communications.
968.375(3)(3) Warrant. Upon the request of the attorney general or a district attorney and upon a showing of probable cause, a judge may issue a warrant requiring a person who provides electronic communication service or remote computing service to disclose within a reasonable time that is established in the warrant any of the following:
968.375(3)(a)(a) The content of a wire or electronic communication that is in electronic storage in an electronic communications system or held or maintained by a provider of remote computing service.
968.375(3)(c)(c) A record or information that identifies the location of a device used to transmit electronic or wire communications.
968.375(4)(4) Basis, application for, and issuance of subpoena or warrant. Section 968.12 (2) and (3) applies to the basis and application for, and issuance of, a subpoena under sub. (2) or a warrant under sub. (3) as it applies to the basis and application for, and issuance of, a search warrant under s. 968.12.
968.375(5)(5) Manner of service. A subpoena or warrant issued under this section may be served in the manner provided for serving a summons under s. 801.11 (5) or, if delivery can reasonably be proved, by United States mail, delivery service, telephone facsimile, or electronic transmission.
968.375(6)(6) Time for service. A subpoena or warrant issued under this section shall be served not more than 5 days after the date of issuance.
968.375(7)(7) Motion to quash. The person on whom a subpoena or warrant issued under this section is served may file a motion to quash the subpoena or warrant with the judge who issued the subpoena or warrant. If the person files the motion within the time for production of records or information, the judge shall hear and decide the motion within 8 days after the motion is filed.
968.375(8)(8) Law enforcement presence not required. The presence of a law enforcement officer is not required for service or execution of a subpoena or warrant issued under this section.
968.375(9)(9) Return. A subpoena or warrant issued under this section shall be returned to the court not later than 5 days after the records or information described in the subpoena or warrant are received by the attorney general, district attorney, or law enforcement agency, whichever is designated in the subpoena or warrant.
968.375(10)(10) Secrecy. A subpoena or warrant issued under this section shall be issued with all practicable secrecy and the request, complaint, affidavit, or testimony upon which it is based may not be filed with the clerk or made public until the subpoena or warrant has been executed and returned to the court. The judge may issue an order sealing the subpoena or warrant and the request, complaint, affidavit, or testimony upon which it is based. The judge may issue an order prohibiting the person on whom the subpoena or warrant is served from disclosing the existence of the subpoena or warrant to the customer or subscriber unless the judge subsequently authorizes such disclosure.
968.375(11)(11) Immunity. A person on whom a subpoena or warrant issued under this section is served is immune from civil liability for acts or omissions in providing records or information, facilities, or assistance in accordance with the terms of the subpoena or warrant.
968.375(12)(12) Technical irregularities. Evidence disclosed under a subpoena or warrant issued under this section shall not be suppressed because of technical irregularities or errors not affecting the substantial rights of the defendant.
968.375(13)(13) Disclosure without subpoena or warrant. A provider of electronic communication or remote computing service may disclose records or information described under sub. (2) (a) of a customer or subscriber or the content of communications of a customer or subscriber described under sub. (3) without a subpoena or warrant if any of the following applies:
968.375(13)(b)(b) The provider of electronic communication or remote computing service believes in good faith that an emergency involving the danger of death or serious physical injury to any person exists and that disclosure of the information is required to prevent the death or injury or to mitigate the injury.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2014–2024 · leading case: State v. Bobby L. Tate, 2014 WI 89 (Wis. 2014).
State v. Bobby L. Tate, 2014 WI 89 (Wis. 2014). “373 and Wis. Stat. § 968.375 (4)(c) (2013-14). These statutes were not in effect when Tate's cell phone was tracked.”
State v. Keimonte Antonie Wilson, Sr., 2017 WI 63 (Wis. 2017). “11 already applied to the service of a subpoena in all criminal cases, the language incorporating it into Wis. Stat. § 968.375 would be rendered superfluous.”
State v. Nicolas Subdiaz-Osorio, 2014 WI 87 (Wis. 2014). “Wis. Stat. § 968.375 (15)(b). Section 968.”
State Ex Rel. Two Unnamed v. Peterson, 2015 WI 85 (Wis. 2015). “§ 968.375 . Milwaukee County prosecutors have used these 24 Christine Galves & Fred Galves, Ensuring the Admissibility of Electronic Forensic Evidence and Enhancing Its Probative Value at Trial, 19 Criminal Justice Magazine 1 (Spring 2004), available at http://www.”
John K. Maciver Inst. for Pub. Policy, Inc. v. Schmitz, 885 F.3d 1004 (7th Cir. 2018). “In undertaking this task, it starts by looking back to the ECPA, the SCA's parent statute.”
State v. Rindfleisch, 2014 WI App 121 (Wis. Ct. App. 2014). “" 12 The focus of Rindfleisch's suppression argument to the circuit court was that: (1) the warrants failed to identify the objects to be seized with requisite particularity; and (2) Wis. Stat. § 968.375 is unconstitutional as applied to her case.”
State v. Gary Lunsford (075691), 141 A.3d 270 (N.J. 2016). “3 (2016); Wis. Stat. Ann. § 968.375 (2016). 9 See People v.”
John K. Maciver Inst. for Pub. Policy, Inc. v. Schmitz, 243 F. Supp. 3d 1028 (W.D. Wis. 2017). “12 (defining a search warrant as “an order signed by a judge”); Wis. Stat. § 968.375 (3)(a) (providing that a “judge” can issue a search warrant for electronic information upon a showing of probable cause); see also Wis.”
State v. Todd DiMiceli (Wis. Ct. App. 2021). “¶3 On September 4, 2015, a Department agent downloaded four files containing what the agent believed to be child pornography from a specific IP address, thereby identifying that IP address as a potential source of child pornography.”
Sholar v. Stevens (E.D. Wis. 2024). “The State also relied on CSLI (from Sholar’s cell phone) obtained by subpoena pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 968.375 (2009–10). Id. ¶¶17–23.”
State v. Lamont Donnell Sholar (Wis. Ct. App. 2021). “§ 968.375 (2009-10).13 To authorize the search 12 We note that Sholar does not argue that the affidavit supporting the subpoena could not have supported a showing of probable cause for a warrant; instead, he argues that the State did not seek a warrant.”
State v. Barwick, 921 N.W.2d 532 (Wis. Ct. App. 2018). “§ 968.375(1) are met. The statute, titled "Subpoenas and warrants for records or communications of customers of an electronic communication service or remote computing service provider," provides: (1) JURISDICTION .”
— Wis. Stat. § 968.375(1) — 1 case
State v. Barwick, 921 N.W.2d 532 (Wis. Ct. App. 2018). “§ 968.375(1) are met. The statute, titled "Subpoenas and warrants for records or communications of customers of an electronic communication service or remote computing service provider," provides: (1) JURISDICTION .”
— Wis. Stat. § 968.375(12) — 1 case
State v. Todd DiMiceli (Wis. Ct. App. 2021). “¶3 On September 4, 2015, a Department agent downloaded four files containing what the agent believed to be child pornography from a specific IP address, thereby identifying that IP address as a potential source of child pornography.”
— Wis. Stat. § 968.375(15) — 1 case
State v. Nicolas Subdiaz-Osorio, 2014 WI 87 (Wis. 2014). “Wis. Stat. § 968.375 (15)(b). Section 968.”
— Wis. Stat. § 968.375(2)(a) — 1 case
State v. Todd DiMiceli (Wis. Ct. App. 2021). “¶3 On September 4, 2015, a Department agent downloaded four files containing what the agent believed to be child pornography from a specific IP address, thereby identifying that IP address as a potential source of child pornography.”
— Wis. Stat. § 968.375(3) — 1 case
State v. Lamont Donnell Sholar (Wis. Ct. App. 2021). “§ 968.375 (2009-10).13 To authorize the search 12 We note that Sholar does not argue that the affidavit supporting the subpoena could not have supported a showing of probable cause for a warrant; instead, he argues that the State did not seek a warrant.”
— Wis. Stat. § 968.375(3)(a) — 1 case
State v. Lamont Donnell Sholar (Wis. Ct. App. 2021). “§ 968.375 (2009-10).13 To authorize the search 12 We note that Sholar does not argue that the affidavit supporting the subpoena could not have supported a showing of probable cause for a warrant; instead, he argues that the State did not seek a warrant.”
— Wis. Stat. § 968.375(3)(b) — 1 case
State v. Lamont Donnell Sholar (Wis. Ct. App. 2021). “§ 968.375 (2009-10).13 To authorize the search 12 We note that Sholar does not argue that the affidavit supporting the subpoena could not have supported a showing of probable cause for a warrant; instead, he argues that the State did not seek a warrant.”
— Wis. Stat. § 968.375(4) — 1 case
State v. Lamont Donnell Sholar (Wis. Ct. App. 2021). “§ 968.375 (2009-10).13 To authorize the search 12 We note that Sholar does not argue that the affidavit supporting the subpoena could not have supported a showing of probable cause for a warrant; instead, he argues that the State did not seek a warrant.”
— Wis. Stat. § 968.375(5) — 1 case
State v. Lamont Donnell Sholar (Wis. Ct. App. 2021). “§ 968.375 (2009-10).13 To authorize the search 12 We note that Sholar does not argue that the affidavit supporting the subpoena could not have supported a showing of probable cause for a warrant; instead, he argues that the State did not seek a warrant.”
— Wis. Stat. § 968.375(6) — 1 case
State v. Todd DiMiceli (Wis. Ct. App. 2021). “¶3 On September 4, 2015, a Department agent downloaded four files containing what the agent believed to be child pornography from a specific IP address, thereby identifying that IP address as a potential source of child pornography.”
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.