93.15 Reports to department; inspections.
(1) The department may, by general or special order, require persons engaged in business to file with the department, at such time and in such manner as the department may direct, sworn or unsworn reports or sworn or unsworn answers in writing to specific questions, as to any matter which the department may investigate.
(2) The department or any of its authorized agents may have access to and may copy any document, or any part thereof, which is in the possession or under the control of any person engaged in business, if such document, or such part thereof, is relevant to any matter which the department may investigate.
(3) No person shall refuse or fail to render any report or answer required under this section at such time and in such manner as the department may prescribe. No person shall refuse, neglect or fail to submit, for the purpose of inspection or copying, any document demanded under this section. No person shall willfully make any false entry or statement in any report or answer required or document demanded under this section. No person shall willfully fail to make full and true entries and statements in any report or answer required or document demanded under this section. No person shall, for the purpose of embarrassing the department in the conduct of any investigation, hearing or proceeding, remove out of the state or mutilate or alter any document. No person shall, except through judicial process, resist or obstruct any official or subordinate of the department in the exercise of the official's or subordinate's lawful authority.
History: 1993 a. 492.
A warrantless inspection of a dairy farm under authority of ss. 93.08, 93.15 (2), and 97.12 (1) and related administrative rules made without prior notice and without the owner being present was not unconstitutional. Because the administrative rules govern operations, equipment, and processes not typically conducted in residential areas, the rules and statutes sufficiently preclude making warrantless searches of residences. Lundeen v. DATCP, 189 Wis. 2d 255, 525 N.W.2d 758 (Ct. App. 1994).
Copyright ©2024 LegalFix. All rights reserved. LegalFix is not a law firm, is not licensed to practice law, and does not provide legal advice, services, or representation. The information on this website is an overview of the legal plans you can purchase—or that may be provided by your employer as an employee benefit or by your credit union or other membership group as a membership benefit.
LegalFix provides its members with easy access to affordable legal services through a network of independent law firms. LegalFix, its corporate entity, and its officers, directors, employees, agents, and contractors do not provide legal advice, services, or representation—directly or indirectly.
The articles and information on the site are not legal advice and should not be relied upon—they are for information purposes only. You should become a LegalFix member to get legal services from one of our network law firms.
You should not disclose confidential or potentially incriminating information to LegalFix—you should only communicate such information to your network law firm.
The benefits and legal services described in the LegalFix legal plans are not always available in all states or with all plans. See the legal plan Benefit Overview and the more comprehensive legal plan contract during checkout for coverage details in your state.
Use of this website, the purchase of legal plans, and access to the LegalFix networks of law firms are subject to the LegalFix Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.