968.135 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.
History: 1979 c. 81, 177; 1983 a. 443 s. 4.
A 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).
This 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 her 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.
This 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.
If 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.
Specific 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.