968.12 AnnotationThe purpose of an oath or affirmation is to impress upon the swearing individual an appropriate sense of obligation to tell the truth. The statutes do not invoke specific, mandated language or formulaic procedures in the administration of an oath or affirmation. The oath or affirmation requirement is an issue of substance, not form. State v. Moeser, 2022 WI 76, 405 Wis. 2d 1, 982 N.W.2d 45, 19-2184.

968.13968.13 Search warrant; property subject to seizure.

968.13(1)(a)(a) Contraband, which includes without limitation because of enumeration lottery tickets, gambling machines or other gambling devices, lewd, obscene or indecent written matter, pictures, sound recordings or motion picture films, forged money or written instruments and the tools, dies, machines or materials for making them, and controlled substances, as defined in s. 961.01 (4), and controlled substance analogs, as defined in s. 961.01 (4m), and the implements for smoking or injecting them. Gambling machines or other gambling devices possessed by a shipbuilding business that complies with s. 945.095 are not subject to this section.

968.13(1)(b)(b) Anything which is the fruit of or has been used in the commission of any crime or of a violation of s. 346.63 or a local ordinance in conformity therewith.

968.13(1)(c)(c) Anything other than documents which may constitute evidence of any crime or of a violation of s. 346.63 or a local ordinance in conformity therewith.

968.13(1)(d)(d) Documents which may constitute evidence of any crime, if probable cause is shown that the documents are under the control of a person who is reasonably suspected to be concerned in the commission of that crime under s. 939.05 (2).

968.13(2)(2) In this section, “documents” includes, but is not limited to, books, papers, records, recordings, tapes, photographs, films or computer or electronic data.

968.13 AnnotationAn adversary hearing is not necessary for the seizure of a limited quantity of obscene material as evidence but is necessary before more than evidentiary copies are seized. State ex rel. Howard v. O’Connell, 53 Wis. 2d 248, 192 N.W.2d 201 (1971).

968.13 Annotation“Contraband” under sub. (1) (a) is not limited to items that are per se illegal; it also encompasses items used, acquired, or transferred illegally, including money. State v. Jones, 226 Wis. 2d 565, 594 N.W.2d 738 (1999), 97-3306.

968.13 AnnotationFuture electronic data generated by a global positioning system (GPS) tracking device is not “electronic data” under the control of the individual as the term is used in sub. (2). State v. Pinder, 2018 WI 106, 384 Wis. 2d 416, 919 N.W.2d 568, 17-0208.

968.135968.135 Subpoena for documents. Upon the request of the attorney general or a district attorney and upon a showing of probable cause under s. 968.12, a court shall issue a subpoena requiring the production of documents, as specified in s. 968.13 (2). The documents shall be returnable to the court which issued the subpoena. Motions to the court, including, but not limited to, motions to quash or limit the subpoena, shall be addressed to the court which issued the subpoena. Any person who unlawfully refuses to produce the documents may be compelled to do so as provided in ch. 785. This section does not limit or affect any other subpoena authority provided by law.

968.135 AnnotationA bank’s voluntary surrender of records other than those demanded on the subpoena provided no basis for suppression. State v. Swift, 173 Wis. 2d 870, 496 N.W.2d 713 (Ct. App. 1993).

968.135 AnnotationThis section protects the interests of persons whose documents are sought in addition to protecting the interests of the person on whom a subpoena is served. The defendant had standing to challenge subpoenas issued to produce the defendant’s bank records. A person has standing to seek judicial intervention when that person has a personal stake in the outcome and is directly affected by the issues in controversy. State v. Popenhagen, 2008 WI 55, 309 Wis. 2d 601, 749 N.W.2d 611, 06-1114.

968.135 AnnotationThis section encompasses a motion to suppress documents in violation of this section and to suppress statements directly derived from those documents. The circuit court has discretion to suppress or allow evidence obtained in violation of a statute that does not specifically require suppression of evidence obtained contrary to the statute, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case and the objectives of the statute. State v. Popenhagen, 2008 WI 55, 309 Wis. 2d 601, 749 N.W.2d 611, 06-1114.

968.135 AnnotationIf a person were permitted to bring a motion to quash the subpoena for bank documents unlawfully obtained but not permitted to bring a motion to suppress incriminating statements derived directly from the unlawfully obtained bank documents, the person would not get the full benefit of the protections of the statute, and the underlying objectives of the statute would be defeated. State v. Popenhagen, 2008 WI 55, 309 Wis. 2d 601, 749 N.W.2d 611, 06-1114.

968.135 AnnotationSpecific statutory authorization was not necessary for a judge to issue an order that authorized the procedures used to track the defendant’s cell phone because the order was supported by probable cause. Nonetheless, the order did comply with the spirit of this section and s. 968.12. State v. Tate, 2014 WI 89, 357 Wis. 2d 172, 849 N.W.2d 798, 12-0336.

968.14968.14 Use of force. All necessary force may be used to execute a search warrant or to effect any entry into any building or property or part thereof to execute a search warrant.

968.14 AnnotationOfficers acted legally when, armed with a search warrant, they knocked on a door, pushed it open when the defendant opened it two inches, and put the defendant under restraint before showing the warrant. State v. Meier, 60 Wis. 2d 452, 210 N.W.2d 685 (1973).

968.14 AnnotationTo dispense with the rule of announcement in executing a warrant, particular facts must be shown in each case that support an officer’s reasonable suspicion that exigent circumstances exist. An officer’s experience and training are valid relevant considerations. State v. Meyer, 216 Wis. 2d 729, 576 N.W.2d 260 (1998), 96-2243.

968.14 AnnotationIrrespective of whether the search warrant authorizes a “no-knock” entry, reasonableness is determined when the warrant is executed. State v. Davis, 2000 WI App 270, 240 Wis. 2d 15, 622 N.W.2d 1, 99-2537.

968.14 AnnotationThere is no blanket exception to the knock and announce requirement for executing warrants. To justify no-knock entry, a reasonable suspicion that knocking and announcing will be dangerous, or futile, or will inhibit the effective investigation of a crime must exist. Richards v. Wisconsin, 520 U.S. 385, 117 S. Ct. 1416, 137 L. Ed. 2d 615 (1997).