Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 973.049 (2026)
Sentencing; restrictions on contact
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
973.049(1)(a)(a) “Co-actor” means any individual who was a party to a crime considered at sentencing, whether or not the individual was charged with or convicted of the crime considered at sentencing.
973.049(1)(b)(b) “Crime considered at sentencing” means any crime for which the defendant was convicted or any read-in crime, as defined in s. 973.20 (1g) (b).
973.049(2)(2) When a court imposes a sentence on an individual or places an individual on probation for the conviction of a crime, the court may prohibit the individual from contacting victims of, witnesses to, jurors who served at any proceeding relating to, or co-actors in, a crime considered at sentencing during any part of the individual’s sentence or period of probation if the court determines that the prohibition would be in the interest of public protection. For purposes of the prohibition, the court may determine who are the victims of or witnesses to any crime considered at sentencing.
973.049(3)(3) If a court issues an order under sub. (2), the court shall inform the individual of the prohibition and include the prohibition in the judgment of conviction for the crime.
973.049 AnnotationSub. (2) plainly allows a sentencing court to prohibit a defendant from contacting victims of a crime considered at sentencing. The statute clearly states the court may impose this prohibition during any part of the defendant’s sentence. The statute also grants the court discretion to determine who is a victim of a crime considered at sentencing. State v. Campbell, 2011 WI App 18, 331 Wis. 2d 91, 794 N.W.2d 276, 10-0905.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2010–2021 · leading case: State v. Campbell, 2011 WI App 18 (Wis. Ct. App. 2010).
State v. Campbell, 2011 WI App 18 (Wis. Ct. App. 2010). “We conclude the circuit court had statutory authority to impose the no-contact provision as a condition of Campbell's entire sentence under Wis. Stat. § 973.049 (2), 1 which provides: When a court imposes a sentence on an individual or places an individual on probation for the…”
State v. Anthony M. Schmidt, 2021 WI 65 (Wis. 2021). “But the majority expands the child pornography surcharge's reach to images beyond those connected to 6The same definition is also found in Wis. Stat. § 973.049 , which applies to restrictions on contact during sentencing.”
State v. Anthony M. Schmidt, 2021 WI 65 (Wis. 2021). “What does The same definition is also found in Wis. Stat. § 973.049 , 6 which applies to restrictions on contact during sentencing.”
State v. Fleming, 918 N.W.2d 644 (Wis. Ct. App. 2018). “is not a victim and that the court therefore erred in imposing the no-contact provision.”
State v. William T. Peterson (Wis. Ct. App. 2019). “§ 973.049 applies to restrictions placed on contacting a victim, witness, or co-actor, and it specifically states that the prohibition on contact of a witness is permitted if it is “in the interest of public protection.”
State v. Nugene A. Jackson (Wis. Ct. App. 2021). “§ 973.049(2) (2017-18) states, in relevant part: “When a court imposes a sentence on an individual … the court may prohibit the individual from contacting victims of, witnesses to, or co-actors in, a crime considered at sentencing[.”
— Wis. Stat. § 973.049(2) — 4 cases
State v. Campbell, 2011 WI App 18 (Wis. Ct. App. 2010). “We conclude the circuit court had statutory authority to impose the no-contact provision as a condition of Campbell's entire sentence under Wis. Stat. § 973.049 (2), 1 which provides: When a court imposes a sentence on an individual or places an individual on probation for the…”
State v. Fleming, 918 N.W.2d 644 (Wis. Ct. App. 2018). “is not a victim and that the court therefore erred in imposing the no-contact provision.”
State v. William T. Peterson (Wis. Ct. App. 2019). “§ 973.049 applies to restrictions placed on contacting a victim, witness, or co-actor, and it specifically states that the prohibition on contact of a witness is permitted if it is “in the interest of public protection.”
State v. Nugene A. Jackson (Wis. Ct. App. 2021). “§ 973.049(2) (2017-18) states, in relevant part: “When a court imposes a sentence on an individual … the court may prohibit the individual from contacting victims of, witnesses to, or co-actors in, a crime considered at sentencing[.”
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.