Wisconsin Senate Bill SB953

Wisconsin 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/6/26
• Refer: 2/6/26
• Report Pass: 3/3/26
• Failed: 3/23/26

Caption

An Act to create 165.505 (1) (bg) 3. of the statutes; Relating to: Internet crimes against children administrative subpoenas for the crime of sexual extortion when the crime victim is a child. (FE)

Summary

SB953 would expand Wisconsin’s existing authority for Internet crimes against children administrative subpoenas. Under current law, the attorney general may issue subpoenas to electronic communication service providers, remote computing service providers, and hotels when records are likely relevant to investigations of human trafficking or certain Internet crimes against children. This bill adds sexual extortion to that list when the victim was under 18 at the time of the offense. In practical terms, the bill would allow investigators to use administrative subpoenas to obtain information tied to suspected sexual extortion cases involving child victims, without first relying on the same tools available for other categories of covered crimes. The bill creates a new statutory reference in the administrative subpoena law, tying it to the sexual extortion offense statute and the definition of a child under Wisconsin law.

Impact

The bill would amend s. 165.505(1)(bg) by adding a new subdivision that treats a violation of s. 942.095 as an Internet crime against a child when the victim is a child. This would broaden the attorney general’s subpoena authority in investigations involving child sexual extortion, potentially reaching digital records and related service-provider information relevant to identifying suspects, communications, and account activity. The bill does not create a new criminal offense or change the elements of sexual extortion; it changes investigative powers and the scope of records that may be compelled in certain cases.

Sentiment

The available context suggests the bill was generally aimed at strengthening law-enforcement tools for child exploitation investigations, with no recorded committee debate or vote history in the provided materials. Its introduction by a bipartisan group of senators and representatives suggests broad interest in the subject matter, but the bill ultimately failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1. Because no transcripts or roll-call votes are provided, there is no direct evidence of opposition or support beyond the bill’s sponsorship and final failure.

Contention

The main policy issue is the balance between expanding investigative authority and the privacy/oversight concerns that can accompany administrative subpoenas. Supporters would likely view the bill as a targeted response to online sexual exploitation of minors and a way to speed access to records in urgent investigations. Potential concerns could center on the breadth of subpoena power, the use of administrative rather than judicial process, and whether the new authority should be limited strictly to cases involving child victims, which this bill does by its terms.