EnglishEspañol
Recording LawsWisconsin Laws flagWisconsin Laws
Wisconsin flag

Wisconsin

Wisconsin Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent Rules

Independently fact-checkedEditor-reviewedLaw current as of August 15, 2026By Recording Law Editorial TeamReviewed August 26, 202615 min read

Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 15, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of August 15, 2026. · 21 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content

Wisconsin Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent Rules

Wisconsin is a one-party consent state under Wis. Stat. § 968.31(2)(c). Any participant in a wire, electronic, or oral communication may record without notifying the other parties, unless the recording serves a criminal, tortious, or otherwise injurious purpose. Recording without any party's consent is a Class H felony, and victims can sue for civil damages.

Wisconsin recording law at a glance

QuestionAnswer
Consent ruleOne-party: a participant may record without disclosure
Main statuteWis. Stat. § 968.31(2)(c)
When it is illegalNo party consents AND recorder is not within the participant or color-of-law exception
Criminal penaltyClass H felony: up to 6 years / $10,000 fine (§ 939.50(3)(h))
Civil penaltyActual damages or $100/day or $1,000 minimum (whichever higher), plus punitives and attorney fees (§ 968.31(2m))
Hidden camerasClass A misdemeanor (§ 942.08(2)); Class I felony for up-skirt capture or victim under 18
Recording policePermitted in public; First Amendment protected per ACLU v. Alvarez (7th Cir. 2012)

For deeper treatment of each topic, jump to the in-depth section below.

Recording in-person conversations in Wisconsin

Wisconsin is a one-party consent state. Under Wis. Stat. § 968.31(2)(c), a private actor who is a party to the conversation may record without telling anyone else, as long as the recording is not made for a criminal, tortious, or otherwise injurious purpose. The criminal offense at § 968.31(1) is a Class H felony that reaches only recordings where no party consents.

Wisconsin's Electronic Surveillance Control Law (WESCL), codified at Wis. Stat. §§ 968.27 to 968.37, covers in-person "oral communication" when uttered with a reasonable expectation of privacy under Wis. Stat. § 968.27. This is an important scope point: a private conversation in a closed office or home falls within the statute; a chat in a crowded public lobby probably does not, because there is no justified privacy expectation. Wisconsin thus covers face-to-face recording that some neighboring states (like Indiana) exclude from their wiretap chapters.

Wisconsin's defining quirk is the injurious-purpose clause. The participant exception disappears when recording is made "for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act... or for the purpose of committing any other injurious act." The phrase "any other injurious act" is broader than the federal ECPA equivalent at 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d), which stops at "criminal or tortious." Recording to extort, harass, stalk, defame, or accomplish another wrong against the speaker forfeits the exception even if you are a party to the call.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court addressed a related fact pattern in State v. Duchow, 2008 WI 57: a school bus driver's threats to a child were captured by a recorder the child's parents placed in his backpack. The Court held the driver's statements were not "oral communication" under the WESCL at all, because he had no reasonable expectation of privacy in threats made on a public school bus, and it expressly declined to decide whether the statute permits vicarious parental consent. State v. Turner, 2014 WI App 93 later set the totality-of-the-circumstances test for a minor's capacity to consent to color-of-law surveillance.

Practical advice: confirm you are a participant, not merely someone who placed a device and left the room (the exception requires you to be a party). For sensitive recordings, note the location and participants. Do not edit originals, because authentication challenges are easy to mount against spliced clips.

Wisconsin a small audio recorder and over-ear headphones resting on a stack of legal documents

Recording phone calls in Wisconsin

Phone calls, video calls, and other transmitted communications fall within the WESCL "wire communication" and "electronic communication" categories under § 968.27. Wisconsin's one-party rule applies equally: if you are a party to the call, you may record. The same injurious-purpose limit applies.

The definition of "electronic communication" is technology-neutral and reaches VoIP calls, video conferencing (Zoom, Teams, Google Meet), and voice-message apps (WhatsApp, Signal voice notes). Platforms that postdate the statute still fall within the category.

Multistate calls. When a party is in an all-party consent state (California, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Washington, or another strict-state jurisdiction), that state's law typically governs if it is stricter. A Wisconsin caller dialing an Illinois number assumes Illinois Eavesdropping Act exposure. Conservative practice: announce the recording at the start, or get express consent.

Business call recording. A Wisconsin business is a participant in its own customer-service and sales calls and may record under § 968.31(2)(c). Multistate operators should provide a recorded-notice announcement at the start of every call to address the strictest applicable state. The old FCC beep-tone rule (47 C.F.R. § 64.501) was removed effective November 20, 2017 and is not live law.

For the full treatment of call recording rules and interstate conflicts, see the Wisconsin Phone Call Recording Laws spoke.

Wisconsin two office chairs angled toward each other beside a window with a small voice recorder on the side table

Hidden cameras, doorbells, and nanny cams

Wisconsin's privacy-of-image statutes sit alongside, not inside, the WESCL audio chapter. A single surreptitious recording device can violate both § 968.31 (audio of a private oral communication) and § 942.08 (video surveillance device in a private place).

Wis. Stat. § 942.08 (voyeurism). Subsection (2) is a Class A misdemeanor (up to 9 months' jail, $10,000 fine) for knowingly installing or using a surveillance device in a private place to observe a nude or partially nude person without consent, peeping into a public-accommodation changing room or toilet for sexual gratification, or entering another person's private property without consent (or an enclosed or unenclosed common area of a multiunit dwelling or condominium) and looking into a dwelling unit for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification and with intent to intrude upon or interfere with an individual's privacy, where an individual is present in that part of the unit, has a reasonable expectation of privacy there, and does not consent. Subsection (3) escalates to a Class I felony (up to 3 years 6 months, $10,000 fine) for knowingly viewing, broadcasting, or recording under the outer clothing of an individual their genitals, pubic area, breasts, or buttocks without consent (no sexual gratification element is required). Subsection (4) enhances any subsection (2) violation to a Class I felony when the victim is under 18.

Wis. Stat. § 942.09 (representations depicting nudity). The base offense under subsection (2)(am)1 is a Class I felony for capturing an intimate representation without the depicted person's knowledge and consent when they have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Posting a private representation of an adult without consent under subsection (3m)(a)1 is a Class A misdemeanor (enhanced to Class I felony under subsection (3m)(am) when the victim is under 18). The 2025 Wisconsin Act 34 additions (synthetic intimate representation) are addressed in the Special Topics section below.

Audio caveat for home cameras. A Ring doorbell or nanny cam recording conversations inside a Wisconsin home where no participant has consented may trigger WESCL exposure under § 968.31 in addition to the § 942.08 video analysis. Configure audio-capable devices so that at least one household participant is a party to any recorded conversation, or disable audio if the purpose is purely video security.

Wis. Stat. § 942.10 (drone surveillance). Using a drone with intent to photograph, record, or observe a person in a place with a reasonable expectation of privacy is a Class A misdemeanor. Law enforcement operating under § 175.55(2) authorization is exempt.

For deeper coverage see the Wisconsin Voyeurism and Hidden Camera Laws and Wisconsin Security Camera Laws spokes.

Wisconsin a folded pair of smart glasses resting on a wooden desk beside a closed notebook

Penalties for illegal recording in Wisconsin

Criminal penalties under the WESCL and the privacy-of-image statutes:

OffenseStatuteClassMax PrisonMax Fine
Unlawful interception (wire, electronic, or oral)§ 968.31(1)(a)Class H felony6 years$10,000
Unlawful disclosure or use of intercepted contents§ 968.31(1)(c)-(d)Class H felony6 years$10,000
Surveillance device in private place; peeping§ 942.08(2)Class A misdemeanor9 months$10,000
Under-clothing capture of genitals or intimate areas without consent§ 942.08(3)Class I felony3 yrs 6 mos$10,000
§ 942.08(2) with victim under 18§ 942.08(4)Class I felony3 yrs 6 mos$10,000
Capturing intimate representation without consent§ 942.09(2)(am)1Class I felony3 yrs 6 mos$10,000
Posting synthetic intimate representation with coercive intent§ 942.09(2)(am)4Class I felony3 yrs 6 mos$10,000
Drone surveillance in place of reasonable privacy expectation§ 942.10Class A misdemeanor9 months$10,000

Civil remedy under § 968.31(2m): the greater of actual damages, $100 per day of violation, or $1,000 minimum (liquidated, so no separate proof of economic harm is required), plus punitive damages for willful violations, plus reasonable attorney fees and litigation costs. The Wisconsin civil floor ($1,000) is lower than the federal ECPA floor at 18 U.S.C. § 2520 ($10,000); federal claims are available when the conduct also violates ECPA.

A felony conviction under § 968.31(1) carries the collateral consequences that attach to any Wisconsin felony: a permanent record, potential loss of federal firearm rights under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), and restrictions on professional licensing and housing. Wisconsin does not provide for general expungement of adult felony convictions; restoration typically requires an executive pardon.

Wisconsin a desk phone handset lifted slightly off its cradle on an office desk

Recording the police in Wisconsin

Wisconsin sits in the Seventh Circuit. The controlling First Amendment authority is ACLU of Illinois v. Alvarez, 679 F.3d 583 (7th Cir. 2012): the court held that audio-recording on-duty police officers performing public duties is protected by the First Amendment and that criminalizing all nonconsensual audio recording is not narrowly tailored to the state's privacy interest. The decision binds Wisconsin federal courts.

Wisconsin has no separate state right-to-record statute. Combined with the participant-consent rule at § 968.31(2)(c), a citizen openly recording police in public is protected on two independent grounds: the First Amendment (Alvarez) and the participant-consent exception (the citizen is a party to their own observation).

You may film traffic stops, record public arrests, document use of force, and livestream encounters from public property. You may not interfere with police operations, obstruct an officer, or trespass onto private property to record. Comply with lawful time, place, and manner instructions on the spot; challenge a pretextual order through proper legal channels afterward.

For the full analysis, see the Wisconsin Laws on Recording Police spoke.

Special topics in Wisconsin

Deepfakes and synthetic intimate imagery (2025 Wisconsin Act 34)

2025 Wisconsin Act 34 (originating as 2025 Senate Bill 33, signed October 2, 2025) amended Wis. Stat. § 942.09 in three places. Section 942.09(1)(e) defines "synthetic intimate representation" as a technologically generated representation using an identifiable person's face, likeness, or distinguishing characteristic to depict an intimate representation, so realistic that a reasonable person would believe it depicts actual conduct of that person. Section 942.09(2)(am)4 makes it a Class I felony to post, publish, distribute, or exhibit such a representation with intent to coerce, harass, or intimidate. Section 942.09(3m)(a)3, a companion Class A misdemeanor, separately reaches unauthorized reproduction of a real (non-synthetic) private representation; it is not the synthetic-imagery offense itself. Note the placement: synthetic intimate representation is § 942.09, not § 942.08 (the separate voyeurism statute).

Election synthetic-media disclaimer (2023 Wisconsin Act 123)

2023 Wisconsin Act 123 requires AI-disclosure tags on any campaign-finance regulated audio or video communication that contains "synthetic media" generated substantially by generative AI. Audio communications must include "Contains content generated by AI" at both the beginning and end. Forfeiture up to $1,000 per violation; broadcasters and carriers are shielded. This is a separate statute from Act 34: one covers intimate deepfakes (Class I felony), the other covers election-period synthetic media (campaign-finance forfeiture).

Federal TAKE IT DOWN Act overlay

The federal TAKE IT DOWN Act, Pub. L. 119-12 (signed May 19, 2025) criminalizes knowing publication of non-consensual intimate imagery, including AI deepfakes, and requires covered platforms to remove flagged content within 48 hours. Platform compliance under Section 3 was effective May 19, 2026. Wisconsin victims have a stacked remedy: state criminal prosecution under § 942.09 (as expanded by Act 34), state civil remedies, and federal remedies under TAKE IT DOWN.

Workplace recording and NLRB Section 7

Wisconsin's one-party rule governs the criminal analysis: as a participant in a workplace conversation you may record without telling a coworker, subject to the tortious-purpose limit. Criminal-law permission is not employment-law immunity: Wisconsin is an at-will employment state, and employers can discipline employees for violating a valid no-recording policy. Under NLRB Stericycle, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 113 (Aug. 2, 2023), a blanket no-recording rule is presumptively unlawful under Section 7 unless it advances a legitimate business interest that cannot be served by a narrower rule. NLRB GC 25-05 (Feb. 14, 2025) reinstated Boeing-era enforcement discretion but did not overrule Stericycle. NLRB GC 25-07 (June 25, 2025) addresses surreptitious recording of NLRA collective-bargaining sessions specifically: covert recording of a bargaining session is per se bad-faith bargaining under Section 8(a)(5) or 8(b)(3). For detailed coverage, see the Wisconsin Workplace Recording Laws spoke.

Lawyer ethics: State Bar EF-24-01

Wisconsin State Bar Formal Ethics Opinion EF-24-01 (Feb. 6, 2024) is the controlling Wisconsin attorney-ethics authority on surreptitious recording. Recording a client without disclosure violates SCR 20:1.4(b) and SCR 20:8.4(c). Recording a judge or court staff is prohibited. Lying about whether a recording is occurring violates SCR 20:4.1(a). The opinion does not change the underlying criminal-law one-party rule; the consequence for a noncompliant lawyer is professional discipline, not a felony.

Body-worn cameras (Wis. Stat. § 165.87)

Wis. Stat. § 165.87 (last substantively amended by 2021 Wisconsin Act 240) requires agencies to maintain written policies on use, storage, and training, and sets a 120-day minimum retention floor. Recordings depicting death, injury, custodial arrest, authorized search, or use of force must be retained until final disposition of any related investigation, case, or complaint. Body-camera footage is subject to Wisconsin's Public Records Law at § 19.35: to obtain a recording, file a public-records request with the agency identifying the date, time, location, and officer; a complete denial must cite a specific statutory exception.

Admissibility of recordings in Wisconsin courts (§ 885.365)

A recording that is legal to make is not automatically evidence you can use. A Wisconsin phone recording can be perfectly lawful under § 968.31(2)(c) and still be barred from a civil case. Wis. Stat. § 885.365(1) provides that evidence obtained from using voice recording equipment to record telephone conversations, "by way of interception of a communication or in any other manner," is "totally inadmissible in the courts of this state in civil actions, except as provided in ss. 968.28 to 968.37."

The main way back in is notice. Under § 885.365(2)(a), that bar does not apply where the recording is made in a manner other than by interception and "the person whose conversation is being recorded is informed at that time that the conversation is being recorded and that any evidence thereby obtained may be used in a court of law." The same paragraph also excepts a recording made through a telecommunications utility or carrier recorder connector that automatically produces a distinctive recorder tone repeated at intervals of approximately 15 seconds. Two narrower exceptions cover utility recordings incident to operating the service and its facilities (§ 885.365(2)(b)) and fire-department or law-enforcement recordings made to determine violations of and enforce § 941.13 (§ 885.365(2)(c)).

Note the boundaries of this rule: by its terms it reaches telephone conversations, and it operates in civil actions. It does not on its face govern in-person recordings or criminal prosecutions. The reach of the opening carve-out, "except as provided in ss. 968.28 to 968.37" (the WESCL sections, which include the one-party participant exception at § 968.31(2)(c)), is unsettled, and this page does not resolve it either way. Whether that clause reopens the door to a lawful but unannounced participant recording is a question for Wisconsin counsel on your specific facts.

Practical consequence: if a Wisconsin phone recording may ever matter as civil evidence, say at the start of the call that the conversation is being recorded and that the recording may be used in court. That announcement is not required to record legally, but it is what § 885.365(2)(a) asks for, and it can be the difference between usable evidence and none.

Under Wis. Stat. § 968.30(9)(a), an aggrieved person may separately move to suppress the contents of an unlawfully intercepted wire, electronic, or oral communication, or evidence derived from it, in any trial, hearing, or proceeding. Do not edit or splice originals; edited clips draw authentication challenges under the Wisconsin Best Evidence Rule at § 910.02.

  • October 2, 2025: 2025 Wisconsin Act 34 (Senate Bill 33) signed; created § 942.09(1)(e) definition of "synthetic intimate representation" and § 942.09(2)(am)4 Class I felony for posting with coercive intent.
  • June 25, 2025: NLRB GC 25-07 issued; surreptitious recording of NLRA collective-bargaining sessions is per se bad-faith bargaining.
  • May 19, 2025: Federal TAKE IT DOWN Act signed; platform notice-and-takedown obligations effective May 19, 2026.
  • February 14, 2025: NLRB GC 25-05 issued; reinstated Boeing-era enforcement discretion without overruling Stericycle.
  • February 6, 2024: Wisconsin State Bar Formal Ethics Opinion EF-24-01 issued; comprehensive guidance on lawyer surreptitious recording.
  • 2023: 2023 Wisconsin Act 123 enacted election synthetic-media disclaimer requirement for campaign-finance regulated communications.

Wisconsin recording laws in depth

By type of recording

By place or relationship

More Wisconsin laws

This article is general legal information, not legal advice. Recording laws change and apply differently to each situation. For advice about your situation, consult a licensed Wisconsin attorney.

More Wisconsin Laws

Frequently Asked Questions

Is Wisconsin a one-party or two-party consent state?

Wisconsin is a one-party consent state. Under Wis. Stat. § 968.31(2)(c), a participant in a conversation may record without telling the other parties, as long as the recording is not made for a criminal, tortious, or otherwise injurious purpose. The criminal offense at § 968.31(1) applies only when no party consents.

Can I record a phone call in Wisconsin without telling the other person?

Yes, if you are a party to the call. Wis. Stat. § 968.31(2)(c) authorizes any participant to intercept without disclosure. The exception disappears if your purpose is criminal, tortious, or otherwise injurious. For cross-state calls, the stricter state's law may apply: if the other party is in California, Florida, or Illinois, announce the recording.

What is the penalty for illegally recording someone in Wisconsin?

Criminal: Class H felony under Wis. Stat. § 968.31(1), up to 6 years in prison and a $10,000 fine. Civil: the greater of actual damages, $100 per day of violation, or $1,000 minimum (liquidated), plus punitive damages and reasonable attorney fees under § 968.31(2m).

Is recording someone illegal even if I am part of the conversation?

No, not if you are a participant and your purpose is lawful. Wis. Stat. § 968.31(2)(c) lets you record your own conversations. The one exception: if you are recording in order to extort, harass, stalk, defame, or otherwise harm the speaker, the participant safe harbor disappears under the 'any other injurious act' clause.

Can I record the police in Wisconsin?

Yes. The Seventh Circuit held in ACLU of Illinois v. Alvarez, 679 F.3d 583 (7th Cir. 2012) that audio-recording on-duty police performing public duties is First Amendment protected. That ruling binds Wisconsin federal courts. Wisconsin has no separate state right-to-record statute. Do not interfere with police operations; comply with lawful time, place, and manner orders.

Can my employer fire me for recording at work in Wisconsin?

Yes. Wisconsin is an at-will state, and employers may discipline employees who violate a valid no-recording policy even though one-party recording is lawful under the criminal statute. Under NLRB Stericycle (2023), a blanket no-recording rule must be narrowly tailored to a legitimate business interest, but GC 25-05 (2025) reduced enforcement pressure without overruling that standard.

Are nanny cams and Ring doorbells legal in Wisconsin?

Video-only cameras in common areas of your own property are generally legal. Installing a camera in a place where guests or workers have a reasonable expectation of privacy (a guest bedroom, a bathroom) violates Wis. Stat. § 942.08 regardless of whether you own the property. Audio-enabled cameras that record conversations without any party's consent may also violate § 968.31(1).

Are deepfakes illegal in Wisconsin?

Yes, in two contexts. Posting a synthetic intimate representation with intent to coerce, harass, or intimidate is a Class I felony under Wis. Stat. § 942.09(2)(am)4, added by 2025 Wisconsin Act 34. Using AI-generated media in campaign-finance regulated political communications without an AI disclaimer triggers a $1,000 forfeiture under 2023 Wisconsin Act 123. The federal TAKE IT DOWN Act adds platform notice-and-takedown obligations effective May 19, 2026.

Updates

Corrected the courtroom-evidence section: Wisconsin law presumptively bars recorded telephone conversations from civil cases unless the other person was told at the time that the call was being recorded, and tightened the hidden-camera summary to include the sexual-purpose and privacy elements the voyeurism statute actually requires.

Corrected the penalty for posting a private representation of a minor without consent under Wis. Stat. 942.09(3m)(am) from Class H felony to Class I felony, and clarified that a neighboring provision, 942.09(3m)(a)3, covers reproduction of a real (non-synthetic) private image rather than synthetic deepfake imagery.

Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes

Governing law re-checked for recent changes

Corrected the citation for Wisconsin's evidentiary-suppression rule for unlawfully intercepted communications from Wis. Stat. § 968.31(3) (a good-faith-reliance defense provision, not an exclusionary rule) to the actual governing section, § 968.30(9)(a).

Governing law re-checked for recent changes

Competitive content-gap check against the top Google result (Wisconsin DWD DVR guidance page) and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel one-party-consent explainer: both are thinner than this page and cover no topic we were missing, so no additions were needed. While re-verifying case citations against primary sources, found and corrected a real error: the in-person recording section had misattributed a 'vicarious parental consent is valid' holding to State v. Duchow, 2008 WI 57. The actual Duchow opinion (footnote 4) expressly declines to decide the vicarious-consent question; the Court instead held the school-bus driver's own threats were not 'oral communication' under the WESCL because he had no reasonable expectation of privacy on a public bus. Also corrected the source of the minor-consent totality-of-the-circumstances test from State v. House, 2007 WI 79 (which does not address that test) to the correct case, State v. Turner, 2014 WI App 93. Verified against the full opinions on wicourts.gov and courtlistener.com.

Reviewed and approved by an editor

Restructured for readability: added AEO lede, at-a-glance table, and in-depth index; reorganized core consent sections (in-person, phone, hidden cameras, penalties, police) into short-paragraph format; condensed special topics (deepfakes, NLRB, ethics, body cameras, admissibility) into focused subsections; preserved all verified statutes and case citations; no factual changes needed (all load-bearing facts confirmed against primary docs.legis.wisconsin.gov sources).

Refreshed for 2026: added 2025 Wisconsin Act 34 (originating SB 33, signed by Gov. Evers Oct. 2, 2025) creating Wis. Stat. § 942.09(1)(e) synthetic intimate representation definition and § 942.09(2)(am)4 Class I felony posting offense; corrected deepfake placement to § 942.09 (not § 942.08 voyeurism, which is a separate statute family); corrected § 942.10 framing to drone surveillance (not 'interception by photo'); added § 885.365 admissibility statute and State Bar Formal Ethics Opinion EF-24-01 (Feb. 6, 2024); added State v. Duchow, 2008 WI 57, and State v. House, 2007 WI 79, as Wisconsin Supreme Court one-party precedents; added 2023 Wisconsin Act 123 synthetic-media election disclosure; corrected body-cam citation to Wis. Stat. § 165.87 (last substantively amended by 2021 Wisconsin Act 240); updated FCC 24-24 to vacated and removed stale 47 CFR § 64.501; added NLRB Stericycle, GC 25-05, and GC 25-07 workplace overlay; added federal TAKE IT DOWN Act compliance; replaced commercial-codifier URLs with docs.legis.wisconsin.gov, wicourts.gov, and uscode.house.gov.

Added wearable recording devices section and related FAQs

Sources and References

  1. docs.legis.wisconsin.gov.gov
  2. docs.legis.wisconsin.gov.gov
  3. docs.legis.wisconsin.gov.gov
  4. docs.legis.wisconsin.gov.gov
  5. docs.legis.wisconsin.gov.gov
  6. docs.legis.wisconsin.gov.gov
  7. docs.legis.wisconsin.gov.gov
  8. docs.legis.wisconsin.gov.gov
  9. docs.legis.wisconsin.gov.gov
  10. docs.legis.wisconsin.gov.gov
  11. docs.legis.wisconsin.gov.gov
  12. wicourts.gov.gov
  13. courtlistener.com
  14. wisbar.org
  15. uscode.house.gov.gov
  16. congress.gov.gov
  17. nlrb.gov.gov
  18. nlrb.gov.gov
  19. nlrb.gov.gov
  20. docs.fcc.gov.gov
  21. justice.gov.gov
  22. wicourts.gov.gov
  23. Wis. Stat. § 968.30 - Procedure for Interception of Wire, Electronic or Oral Communications(docs.legis.wisconsin.gov).gov
Share: