Wisconsin Statutes

Wis. Stat. § 973.047 (2026)

Deoxyribonucleic acid analysis requirements

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
973.047973.047Deoxyribonucleic acid analysis requirements.
973.047(1f)(1f)If a court imposes a sentence or places a person on probation, the court shall require the person to provide a biological specimen to the state crime laboratories for deoxyribonucleic acid analysis. The court shall inform the person that he or she may request expungement under s. 165.77 (4).
973.047(1m)(1m)The results from deoxyribonucleic acid analysis of a specimen provided under this section may be used only as authorized under s. 165.77 (3).
973.047(2)(2)Biological samples required under sub. (1f) shall be obtained and submitted as specified in rules promulgated by the department of justice under s. 165.76 (4).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases, 1996–2017 · leading case: State v. Radaj, 2015 WI App 50 (Wis. Ct. App. 2015).
State v. Radaj, 2015 WI App 50 (Wis. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 5× “Wis. Stat. § 973.047 (lf) (2011-12). Now, a court imposing a sentence or placing a person on probation for any crime must require the person to provide a biological specimen to the state crime labo *640 ratories for analysis.”
State v. Jones, 2004 WI App 212 (Wis. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 7× “The language of the statute plainly states that the trial court has the discretion to order a DNA surcharge upon the entry of a judgment in this felony case. Nothing in § 973.”
State v. Nickel, 2010 WI App 161 (Wis. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 5× “The trial court determined that the sentencing court had appropriately exercised its discretion in ordering the DNA sample as a condition of Nickel's felony conviction under Wis. Stat. § 973.047 (lf) and in ordering Nickel to pay the costs associated with it under Wis.”
State v. Banks, 2010 WI App 107 (Wis. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “See Wis. Stat. § 973.047 (lf) (2007-08). All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2007-08 version unless otherwise noted.”
People v. Garvin, 812 N.E.2d 773 (Ill. App. Ct. 2004). “Code § 15 — 2B—6 (2002); Wis. Stat. § 973.047 (2002); Wyo. Stat. § 7 — 19—403 (2002).”
State v. Ziller, 2011 WI App 164 (Wis. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “Wis. Stat. § 973.047 (lf). As this was the first time Ziller was convicted of a felony, he was required to submit a DNA sample.”
State v. Williams, 2017 WI App 46 (Wis. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “The surcharge for other felony offenders was within the circuit court's discretion.”
State v. Trepanier, 555 N.W.2d 394 (Wis. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 4× “In contrast, who is actually required to provide a sample is set out in § 973.047, STATS. The State reasons that such a focus would limit the class to those convicted of burglary and that all those in the class are treated equally.”
State v. Long, 2011 WI App 146 (Wis. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “§ 973.047 obligates the circuit court to require anyone convicted of a felony to provide a DNA sample.”
State v. Simonis, 2012 WI App 84 (Wis. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 14× “There is no dispute that the two crimes for which Simonis was sentenced in this case were felonies, and that the circuit court therefore properly ordered that Simonis provide a biological specimen for DNA analysis pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 973.047 . Thus, Wis. Stat. § 973.”
State v. Alliet, 690 N.W.2d 884 (Wis. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 3× “§ 973.047. [3] Alliet's lawyer pointed out that Alliet had "already given the DNA sample so this is really moot.”
People v. Garvin (Ill. App. Ct. 2004). “Code §15 --2B--6 (2002); Wis. Stat. §973.047 (2002); Wyo. Stat. §7--19--403 (2002).”
— Wis. Stat. § 973.047(1) — 2 cases
State v. Jones, 2004 WI App 212 (Wis. Ct. App. 2004). “The language of the statute plainly states that the trial court has the discretion to order a DNA surcharge upon the entry of a judgment in this felony case. Nothing in § 973.”
State v. Trepanier, 555 N.W.2d 394 (Wis. Ct. App. 1996). “In contrast, who is actually required to provide a sample is set out in § 973.047, STATS. The State reasons that such a focus would limit the class to those convicted of burglary and that all those in the class are treated equally.”
— Wis. Stat. § 973.047(1f) — 1 case
State v. Alliet, 690 N.W.2d 884 (Wis. Ct. App. 2004). “§ 973.047. [3] Alliet's lawyer pointed out that Alliet had "already given the DNA sample so this is really moot.”
— Wis. Stat. § 973.047(H) — 1 case
State v. Radaj, 2015 WI App 50 (Wis. Ct. App. 2015). “Wis. Stat. § 973.047 (lf) (2011-12). Now, a court imposing a sentence or placing a person on probation for any crime must require the person to provide a biological specimen to the state crime labo *640 ratories for analysis.”
— Wis. Stat. § 973.047(l)(a) — 1 case
State v. Trepanier, 555 N.W.2d 394 (Wis. Ct. App. 1996). “In contrast, who is actually required to provide a sample is set out in § 973.047, STATS. The State reasons that such a focus would limit the class to those convicted of burglary and that all those in the class are treated equally.”
— Wis. Stat. § 973.047(lf) — 2 cases
State v. Long, 2011 WI App 146 (Wis. Ct. App. 2011). “§ 973.047 obligates the circuit court to require anyone convicted of a felony to provide a DNA sample.”
State v. Simonis, 2012 WI App 84 (Wis. Ct. App. 2012). “There is no dispute that the two crimes for which Simonis was sentenced in this case were felonies, and that the circuit court therefore properly ordered that Simonis provide a biological specimen for DNA analysis pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 973.047 . Thus, Wis. Stat. § 973.”
— Wis. Stat. § 973.047(lm) — 1 case
State v. Simonis, 2012 WI App 84 (Wis. Ct. App. 2012). “There is no dispute that the two crimes for which Simonis was sentenced in this case were felonies, and that the circuit court therefore properly ordered that Simonis provide a biological specimen for DNA analysis pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 973.047 . Thus, Wis. Stat. § 973.”
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.