Each law enforcement agency, as defined in s. 165.83 (1) (b)
, and each facility where a strip search may be conducted pursuant to this section, shall establish written policies and procedures concerning strip searches which at least meet the minimum requirements of this section and shall provide annual training regarding the policies and procedures to any employee or agent of the agency or facility who may conduct a strip search.
This section does not apply to a search of any person who:
Is serving a sentence, pursuant to a conviction, in a jail, state prison or house of correction.
Is placed in or transferred to a juvenile correctional facility, as defined in s. 938.02 (10p)
, or a secured residential care center for children and youth, as defined in s. 938.02 (15g)
A visual body cavity search is more intrusive than a strip search. It is not objectively reasonable for police to conclude that consent to a strip search includes consent to scrutiny of body cavities. State v. Wallace, 2002 WI App 61
, 251 Wis. 2d 625
, 642 N.W.2d 549
This section is a regulatory statute aimed at controlling law enforcement officers' conduct via criminal penalties. It does not mention probable cause and authorizes no motions to quash or limit the search. When there was no violation of any constitutional right but merely of the statute itself, the violation of the statute provided no basis for a suppression motion. State v. Minett, 2014 WI App 40
, 353 Wis. 2d 484
, 846 N.W.2d 831
Intrusive searches of the mouth, nose, or ears are not covered by sub. (3). However, searches of those body orifices should be conducted by medical personnel to comply with the 4th and 5th amendments. 71 Atty. Gen. 12
Search of physically disabled person. 968.256(1)(1)
In this section, “physically disabled person" means a person who requires an assistive device for mobility, including, but not limited to, a wheelchair, brace, crutch or artificial limb.
A search of a physically disabled person shall be conducted in a careful manner. If a search of a physically disabled person requires the removal of an assistive device or involves a person lacking sensation in some portion of his or her body, the search shall be conducted with extreme care by a person who has had training in handling physically disabled persons.
History: 1979 c. 240
John Doe proceeding. 968.26(1b)(a)2.
A violation of any of the following if it is a Class E, F, G, H, or I felony:
, 940.19 (2)
, or (6)
, 940.195 (2)
, or (6)
, 940.22 (2)
, 940.225 (3)
, 940.302 (2) (c)
, 941.38 (2)
, 942.09 (2)
, 943.32 (1)
, 948.02 (3)
, 948.03 (2) (b)
, or (4)
, 948.10 (1) (a)
, 948.13 (2) (a)
, 948.23 (1)
, or (3) (c) 2.
, or 948.30 (1)
Any conduct that is prohibited by state law and punishable by fine or imprisonment or both if the individual who allegedly participated in the conduct was a law enforcement officer; a correctional officer; or a state probation, parole, or extended supervision officer and the individual was engaged in his or her official duties at the time of the alleged conduct.
If a district attorney requests a judge to convene a proceeding to determine whether a crime has been committed in the court's jurisdiction, the judge shall convene a proceeding described under sub. (3)
and shall subpoena and examine any witnesses the district attorney identifies.
Except in par. (am)
, in this subsection, “district attorney" includes a prosecutor to whom the judge has referred the complaint under par. (am)
If a person who is not a district attorney complains to a judge that he or she has reason to believe that a crime has been committed within the judge's jurisdiction, the judge shall refer the complaint to the district attorney or, if the complaint may relate to the conduct of the district attorney, to another prosecutor under s. 978.045
If a district attorney receives a referral under par. (am)
, the district attorney shall, within 90 days of receiving the referral, issue charges or refuse to issue charges. If the district attorney refuses to issue charges, the district attorney shall forward to the judge in whose jurisdiction the crime has allegedly been committed all law enforcement investigative reports on the matter that are in the custody of the district attorney, his or her records and case files on the matter, and a written explanation why he or she refused to issue charges. The judge may require a law enforcement agency to provide to him or her any investigative reports that the law enforcement agency has on the matter. The judge shall convene a proceeding as described under sub. (3)
if he or she determines that a proceeding is necessary to determine if a crime has been committed. When determining if a proceeding is necessary, the judge may consider the law enforcement investigative reports, the records and case files of the district attorney, and any other written records that the judge finds relevant.
In a proceeding convened under par. (b)
, the judge shall subpoena and examine under oath the complainant and any witnesses that the judge determines to be necessary and appropriate to ascertain whether a crime has been committed and by whom committed. The judge shall consider the credibility of testimony in support of and opposed to the person's complaint.
In a proceeding convened under par. (b)
, the judge may issue a criminal complaint if the judge finds sufficient credible evidence to warrant a prosecution of the complaint. The judge shall consider, in addition to any testimony under par. (c)
, the law enforcement investigative reports, the records and case files of the district attorney, and any other written reports that the judge finds relevant.
Except as provided in sub. (5)
, the extent to which the judge may proceed in an examination under sub. (1m)
is within the judge's discretion.
Any witness examined under this section may have counsel present at the examination but the counsel shall not be allowed to examine his or her client, cross-examine other witnesses, or argue before the judge.
A court, on the motion of a district attorney, may compel a person to testify or produce evidence under s. 972.08 (1)
. The person is immune from prosecution as provided in s. 972.08 (1)
, subject to the restrictions under s. 972.085
The judge may enter a secrecy order upon a showing of good cause by the district attorney. A secrecy order under this paragraph may apply to only the judge, a district attorney or other prosecuting attorney who participates in a proceeding under this section, law enforcement personnel admitted to a proceeding under this section, an interpreter who participates in a proceeding under this section, or a reporter who makes or transcribes a record of a proceeding under this section. No secrecy order under this section may apply to any other person.
If a judge enters a secrecy order under par. (a)
, the judge shall terminate that secrecy order if any person applies to the judge for the termination and establishes that the good cause shown under par. (a)
no longer exists. If a judge terminates a secrecy order entered under par. (a)
, the identity of the subject of the proceeding under this section may not be disclosed without the subject's consent, except as provided in par. (c)
If a criminal complaint is filed following a proceeding in which the judge entered a secrecy order, the order is terminated at the initial appearance and s. 971.23
governs disclosure of information from a proceeding under this section.
Any person who violates a secrecy order entered under par. (a)
is subject to a fine not to exceed $10,000 or imprisonment not to exceed 9 months, or both.
Except as provided in subd. 2.
, no proceeding may last longer than the following:
If the proceeding begins under sub. (1m)
, 6 months beginning on the day the district attorney requests the judge to convene the proceeding.
If the proceeding begins under sub. (2)
, 6 months beginning on the day the district attorney forwards under sub. (2) (b)
to a judge all reports, records and case files, and an explanation of his or her refusal.
The period under subd. 1.
may be extended only if a majority of judicial administrative district chief judges find good cause for the extension and identification of the vote of each judge is available to the public. The period under subd. 1.
may be extended an unlimited number of times, but each extension may be for no more than 6 months and, for each extension, a majority of judicial administrative district chief judges must find good cause and the identification of the vote of each judge must be available to the public.
A proceeding may not investigate a crime that was not part of the original request under sub. (1m)
or complaint under sub. (2) (a)
, whichever is appropriate, unless a majority of judicial administrative district chief judges find good cause to add specified crimes and the identification of the vote of each judge is available to the public. An unlimited number of specified crimes may be added but, for each addition of a specified crime, a majority of judicial administrative district chief judges must find good cause and the identification of the vote of each judge must be available to the public.
A judge may issue a search warrant relating to a proceeding under this section only if the judge is not presiding over that proceeding.
Records reflecting the costs of an investigation and proceedings under sub. (3)
are subject to the provisions of subch. II of ch. 19
. If a request to inspect or copy a record is received, but no record exists, then, notwithstanding s. 19.35 (1) (L)
, the recipient of the request shall provide a summary amount of the costs.
If property was seized during a proceeding under this section, the judge shall, at the close of the proceeding, order notice as he or she determines to be adequate to all persons who have or may have an interest in the property.
A defendant must be allowed to use testimony of witnesses at a secret John Doe proceeding to impeach the same witnesses at the trial, even if the prosecution does not use the John Doe testimony. Myers v. State, 60 Wis. 2d 248
, 208 N.W.2d 311
An immunity hearing must be in open court. State ex rel. Newspapers, Inc. v. Circuit Court, 65 Wis. 2d 66
, 221 N.W.2d 894
A person charged as a result of a John Doe proceeding has no recognized interest in the maintenance of secrecy in that proceeding. John Doe proceedings are discussed. State v. O'Connor, 77 Wis. 2d 261
, 252 N.W.2d 671
No restriction under the 4th or 5th amendment precludes the enforcement of an order for handwriting exemplars directed by a presiding judge in a John Doe proceeding. State v. Doe, 78 Wis. 2d 161
, 254 N.W.2d 210
Due process does not require that a John Doe witness be advised of the nature of the proceeding or that the witness is a “target" of the investigation. Ryan v. State, 79 Wis. 2d 83
, 255 N.W.2d 910
This section does not violate the constitutional separation of powers doctrine. It does not invest in the John Doe judge an investigatory power that properly can be exercised only by members of the executive branch of government. The judge considers the testimony presented, utilizes his or her training in constitutional and criminal law and in courtroom procedure in determining the need to subpoena witnesses requested by the district attorney, in presiding at the examination of witnesses, and in determining probable cause, and ensures procedural fairness. The John Doe judge must conduct himself or herself as a neutral and detached magistrate in determining probable cause, which is the basic function of the proceeding. State v. Washington, 83 Wis. 2d 808
, 266 N.W.2d 597
A balance between the public's right to know and the need for secrecy in John Doe proceedings is discussed. In re Wis. Family Counseling Services v. State, 95 Wis. 2d 670
, 291 N.W.2d 631
(Ct. App. 1980).
A John Doe judge may not issue a material witness warrant under s. 969.01 (3). State v. Brady, 118 Wis. 2d 154
, 345 N.W.2d 533
(Ct. App. 1984).
When a John Doe proceeding is not a joint executive and judicial undertaking, the procedure does not violate the separation of powers doctrine and is constitutional. State v. Unnamed Defendant, 150 Wis. 2d 352
, 441 N.W.2d 696
A John Doe judge may issue and seal a search warrant, and a district attorney may independently issue a criminal complaint, regardless of the existence of the John Doe. A John Doe cannot be used to obtain evidence against a defendant who has already been charged. State v. Cummings, 199 Wis. 2d 721
, 546 N.W.2d 406
To be entitled to a hearing, a John Doe complainant must do more than merely allege in conclusory terms that a crime has been committed. The complainant's petition must allege facts that raise a reasonable belief that a crime has been committed. State ex rel. Reimann v. Circuit Court for Dane County, 214 Wis. 2d 605
, 571 N.W.2d 385
A nonlawyer's questioning of a witness on the state's behalf at a John Doe hearing even if constituting the unauthorized practice of law did not require exclusion of the testimony at trial. State v. Noble, 2002 WI 64
, 253 Wis. 2d 206
, 646 N.W.2d 38
Article VII, Section 5 (3), read together with ss. 808.03 (2) and 809.51 (1) is sufficiently broad in scope to permit the court of appeals to exercise supervisory jurisdiction over the actions of a judge presiding over a John Doe proceeding. When rendering judicial decisions in the context of a John Doe proceeding, the judge must create a record for possible review. On review of a petition for a writ stemming from a secret John Doe proceeding, the court of appeals may seal parts of a record in order to comply with existing secrecy orders issued by the John Doe judge. Unnamed Persons Numbers 1, 2, and 3 v. State, 2003 WI 30
, 260 Wis. 2d 653
, 660 N.W.2d 260
A John Doe judge must have the authority to disqualify counsel, and may permit argument by counsel when necessary to ensure procedural fairness. Unnamed Persons Numbers 1, 2, and 3 v. State, 2003 WI 30
, 260 Wis. 2d 653
, 660 N.W.2d 260
The John Doe judge erred as a matter of law by requiring an oath of secrecy from a witness's counsel when a secrecy order was in effect. Individual Subpoenaed to Appear at Waukesha County John Doe Case No. 2003 JD 001 v. Davis, 2005 WI 70
, 281 Wis. 2d 431
, 697 N.W.2d 803
The circuit judge erred when in reviewing a John Doe petition he reviewed police reports containing information casting doubt on assertions in the petition and explained that his review of the petition and the police reports led him to conclude that the petitioner failed to allege facts sufficient to raise a reasonable belief that a crime has been committed. This section does not permit this sort of analysis at the threshold stage of determining whether a petition contains reason to believe that a crime has been committed. Williams v. Fiedler, 2005 WI App 91
, 282 Wis. 2d 486
, 698 N.W.2d 294
A John Doe judge has exclusive authority to subpoena witnesses in a John Doe proceeding based upon the language of this section. Hipp v. Circuit Court for Milwaukee County, 2008 WI 67
, 310 Wis. 2d 342
, 750 N.W.2d 837
The judge in a John Doe hearing is not required to examine all the witnesses a complainant produces and to issue subpoenas to all the witnesses a complainant wishes to produce. This section extends judicial discretion in a John Doe hearing not only to the scope of a witness's examination, but also to whether a witness need testify at all. Robins v. Madden, 2009 WI 46
, 317 Wis. 2d 364
, 766 N.W.2d 542
Under sub. (3), as revised by 2009 Wis. Act 24
, a John Doe judge must potentially undertake four inquiries: 1) decide whether to refer the John Doe complaint to the district attorney in the first instance; 2) decide whether it is necessary to conduct any additional proceedings if the district attorney chooses not to issue charges; 3) determine what, if any, witnesses to subpoena and examine if additional proceedings are deemed necessary; and 4) decide whether to issue a criminal complaint if the judge finds that the additional proceedings have produced sufficient credible evidence to warrant prosecution. Naseer v. Miller, 2010 WI App 142
, 329 Wis. 2d 724
, 793 N.W.2d 209
Under the statute, as amended by 2009 Wis. Act 24
, a judge has a mandatory duty to refer a John Doe complaint to the district attorney only if the four corners of the complaint provide a sufficient factual basis to establish an objective reason to believe that a crime has been committed in the judge's jurisdiction, the same as under the prior statute. Naseer v. Miller, 2010 WI App 142
, 329 Wis. 2d 724
, 793 N.W.2d 209
This section grants John Doe judges broad authority to conduct an investigation into alleged crimes. The judge is also given those powers necessary to carry out this duty. The judge is the governor of the proceedings, and is responsible for maintaining the good order, dignity, and insofar as it is compatible with the administration of justice, efficiency of those proceedings. State of Wisconsin ex rel. Schmitz v. Peterson, 2015 WI 85
, 363 Wis. 2d 1
, 866 N.W.2d 165
Applicable law allows electronic transmission of certain confidential case information among clerks of circuit court, county sheriff's offices, and the Department of Justice through electronic interfaces involving the Department of Administration's Office of Justice Assistance, specifically including electronic data messages about an arrest warrant if the warrant was issued in John Doe proceedings that have been sealed under this section. OAG 2-10
Limits of judge's authority in presiding over or conducting John Doe proceedings are discussed. 76 Atty. Gen. 217
Lie detector tests; sexual assault victims. 968.265(2)
If a person reports to a law enforcement officer that he or she was the victim of an offense under s. 940.22 (2)
, 948.02 (1)
, or 948.085
, no law enforcement officer may in connection with the report order, request, or suggest that the person submit to a test using a lie detector, or provide the person information regarding tests using lie detectors unless the person requests information regarding tests using lie detectors.
If a person reports to a district attorney that he or she was the victim of an offense under s. 940.22 (2)
, 948.02 (1)
, or 948.085
, no district attorney may do any of the following in connection with the report:
Order that the person submit to a test using a lie detector.
Suggest or request that the person submit to a test using a lie detector without first providing the person with notice and an explanation of his or her right not to submit to such a test.
History: 2003 a. 224
; 2005 a. 277
“Aggrieved person" means a person who was a party to any intercepted wire, electronic or oral communication or a person against whom the interception was directed.
“Aural transfer" means a transfer containing the human voice at any point from the point of origin to the point of reception.
“Contents," when used with respect to any wire, electronic, or oral communication, includes any information concerning the substance, purport, or meaning of that communication.
“Electronic communication" means any transfer of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data or intelligence of any nature wholly or partially transmitted by a wire, radio, electromagnetic, photoelectronic or photooptical system. “Electronic communication" does not include any of the following: