reglab/housing_qa huggingface dataset:
WI Stat § 904.15 (2021)
2021 Wisconsin Statutes & Annotations|Chapter 904 - Evidence — relevancy and its limits.|904.15 - Communication in farmer assistance programs.

904.15  Communication in farmer assistance programs. (1) Except as provided under sub. (2), no oral or written communication made in the course of providing or receiving advice or counseling under s. 93.51 or in providing or receiving assistance under s. 93.41 or 93.52 is admissible in evidence or subject to discovery or compulsory process in any judicial or administrative proceeding. (2) (a) Subsection (1) does not apply to information relating to possible criminal conduct.(b) Subsection (1) does not apply if the person receiving advice or counseling under s. 93.51 or assistance under s. 93.41 or 93.52 consents to admission or discovery of the communication.(c) A court may admit evidence otherwise barred by this section if necessary to prevent a manifest injustice.History:  1997 a. 264.
WI Stat § 904.16 (2021)
2021 Wisconsin Statutes & Annotations|Chapter 904 - Evidence — relevancy and its limits.|904.16 - Health care reports.

904.16  Health care reports. (1) In this section:(a) “Health care provider" has the meaning given in s. 146.38 (1) (b).(b) “Regulatory agency" means the department of safety and professional services or the division within the department of health services that conducts quality assurance activities related to health care providers.  (2) Except as provided in sub. (3), the following may not be used as evidence in a civil or criminal action brought against a health care provider:(a) Reports that a regulatory agency requires a health care provider to give or disclose to that regulatory agency.(b) Statements of, or records of interviews with, employees of a health care provider related to the regulation of the health care provider obtained by a regulatory agency. (3) This section does not prohibit the use of the reports, statements, and records described in sub. (2) in any administrative proceeding conducted by a regulatory agency. This section does not apply to reports protected under s. 146.997. History:  2011 a. 2; 2013 a. 166.
WI Stat § 905.01 (2021)
2021 Wisconsin Statutes & Annotations|Chapter 905 - Evidence — privileges.|905.01 - Privileges recognized only as provided.

905.01  Privileges recognized only as provided. Except as provided by or inherent or implicit in statute or in rules adopted by the supreme court or required by the constitution of the United States or Wisconsin, no person has a privilege to: (1) Refuse to be a witness; or (2) Refuse to disclose any matter; or (3) Refuse to produce any object or writing; or (4) Prevent another from being a witness or disclosing any matter or producing any object or writing.History:  Sup. Ct. Order, 59 Wis. 2d R1, R101 (1973).This section precludes courts from recognizing common law privileges not contained in the statutes, or the U.S. or Wisconsin Constitutions. Privileges and confidentialities granted by statute are strictly interpreted. Davison v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co., 75 Wis. 2d 190, 248 N.W.2d 433 (1977).A defendant did not have standing to complain that a physician's testimony violated the witness's physician-patient privilege under s. 905.04; the defendant was not authorized to claim the privilege on the patient's behalf. State v. Echols, 152 Wis. 2d 725, 449 N.W.2d 320 (Ct. App. 1989).As s. 907.06 (1) prevents a court from compelling an expert to testify, it logically follows that a litigant should not be able to so compel an expert and a privilege to refuse to testify is implied. Burnett. v. Alt, 224 Wis. 2d 72, 589 N.W.2d 21 (1999), 96-3356.Under Alt, a person asserting the privilege not to offer expert opinion testimony can be required to give that testimony only if: 1) there are compelling circumstances present; 2) there is a plan for reasonable compensation of the expert; and 3) the expert will not be required to do additional preparation for the testimony. An exact question requiring expert opinion testimony and a clear assertion of the privilege are required for a court to decide whether compelling circumstances exist. Alt does not apply to observations made by a person's treating physician relating to the care or treatment provided to the patient. Glenn v. Plante, 2004 WI 24, 269 Wis. 2d 575, 676 N.W.2d 413, 02-1426.The “inherent or implicit" language in this section is quite narrow in scope and was included by the supreme court to preserve a particular work product privilege already recognized at the time this language was added to the statute, while leaving other privileges to be provided for more expressly in other statutory provisions. Sands v. The Whitnall School District, 2008 WI 89, 312 Wis. 2d 1, 754 N.W.2d 439, 05-1026.Closed Session, Open Book: Sifting the Sands Case. Bach. Wis. Law. Oct. 2009.
WI Stat § 905.015 (2021)
2021 Wisconsin Statutes & Annotations|Chapter 905 - Evidence — privileges.|905.015 - Interpreters for persons with language difficulties, limited English proficiency, or hearing or speaking impairments.

905.015  Interpreters for persons with language difficulties, limited English proficiency, or hearing or speaking impairments. (1) If an interpreter for a person with a language difficulty, limited English proficiency, as defined in s. 885.38 (1) (b), or a hearing or speaking impairment interprets as an aid to a communication which is privileged by statute, rules adopted by the supreme court, or the U.S. or state constitution, the interpreter may be prevented from disclosing the communication by any person who has a right to claim the privilege. The interpreter may claim the privilege but only on behalf of the person who has the right. The authority of the interpreter to do so is presumed in the absence of evidence to the contrary. (2) In addition to the privilege under sub. (1), a person who is licensed as an interpreter under s. 440.032 (3) may not disclose any aspect of a confidential communication facilitated by the interpreter unless one of the following conditions applies:(a) All parties to the confidential communication consent to the disclosure.(b) A court determines that the disclosure is necessary for the proper administration of justice. History:  1979 c. 137; 1985 a. 266; 2001 a. 16; 2009 a. 360.
WI Stat § 905.02 (2021)
2021 Wisconsin Statutes & Annotations|Chapter 905 - Evidence — privileges.|905.02 - Required reports privileged by statute.

905.02  Required reports privileged by statute. A person, corporation, association, or other organization or entity, either public or private, making a return or report required by law to be made has a privilege to refuse to disclose and to prevent any other person from disclosing the return or report, if provided by law. A public officer or agency to whom a return or report is required by law to be made has a privilege to refuse to disclose the return or report if provided by law. No privilege exists under this section in actions involving false swearing, fraudulent writing, fraud in the return or report, or other failure to comply with the law in question.History:  Sup. Ct. Order, 59 Wis. 2d R1, R109 (1973).This section applies only to privileges specifically and unequivocally provided by law against the disclosure of specific materials. Davison v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co., 75 Wis. 2d 190, 248 N.W.2d 433 (1977).
WI Stat § 905.06 (2021)
2021 Wisconsin Statutes & Annotations|Chapter 905 - Evidence — privileges.|905.06 - Communications to members of the clergy.

905.06  Communications to members of the clergy. (1) Definitions. As used in this section:(a) A “member of the clergy" is a minister, priest, rabbi, or other similar functionary of a religious organization, or an individual reasonably believed so to be by the person consulting the individual.(b) A communication is “confidential" if made privately and not intended for further disclosure except to other persons present in furtherance of the purpose of the communication. (2)  General rule of privilege. A person has a privilege to refuse to disclose and to prevent another from disclosing a confidential communication by the person to a member of the clergy in the member's professional character as a spiritual adviser. (3)  Who may claim the privilege. The privilege may be claimed by the person, by the person's guardian or conservator, or by the person's personal representative if the person is deceased. The member of the clergy may claim the privilege on behalf of the person. The member of the clergy's authority so to do is presumed in the absence of evidence to the contrary. (4)  Exceptions. There is no privilege under this section concerning observations or information that a member of the clergy, as defined in s. 48.981 (1) (cx), is required to report as suspected or threatened child abuse under s. 48.981 (2) (bm) or as a threat of violence in or targeted at a school under s. 175.32.History:  Sup. Ct. Order, 59 Wis. 2d R1, R135 (1973); 1991 a. 32; 2003 a. 279; 2005 a. 253; 2017 a. 143.An out-of-court disclosure by a priest that the defendant would lead police to the victim's grave was not privileged under this section. State v. Kunkel, 137 Wis. 2d 172, 404 N.W.2d 69 (Ct. App. 1987).Should Clergy Hold the Priest-Penitent Privilege? Mazza. 82 MLR 171 (1998).
WI Stat § 905.065 (2021)
2021 Wisconsin Statutes & Annotations|Chapter 905 - Evidence — privileges.|905.065 - Honesty testing devices.

905.065  Honesty testing devices. (1) Definition. In this section, “honesty testing device" means a polygraph, voice stress analysis, psychological stress evaluator or any other similar test purporting to test honesty. (2)  General rule of the privilege. A person has a privilege to refuse to disclose and to prevent another from disclosing any oral or written communications during or any results of an examination using an honesty testing device in which the person was the test subject. (3)  Who may claim privilege. The privilege may be claimed by the person, by the person's guardian or conservator or by the person's personal representative, if the person is deceased. (4)  Exception. There is no privilege under this section if there is a valid and voluntary written agreement between the test subject and the person administering the test.History:  1979 c. 319.A distinction exists between an inquiry into the taking of a polygraph and an inquiry into its results. An offer to take a polygraph is relevant to an assessment of an offeror's credibility. State v. Wofford, 202 Wis. 2d 523, 551 N.W.2d 46 (Ct. App. 1996), 95-0979.The results of polygraph examinations are inadmissible in civil cases. While an offer to take a polygraph examination may be relevant to the offeror's credibility, that a person agreed to a polygraph at the request of law enforcement has not been found admissible and could not be without proof that the person believed the results would accurately indicate whether he or she was lying. Estate of Neumann v. Neumann, 2001 WI App 61, 242 Wis. 2d 205, 626 N.W.2d 821, 00-0557.
WI Stat § 905.07 (2021)
2021 Wisconsin Statutes & Annotations|Chapter 905 - Evidence — privileges.|905.07 - Political vote.

905.07  Political vote. Every person has a privilege to refuse to disclose the tenor of the person's vote at a political election conducted by secret ballot unless the vote was cast illegally.History:  Sup. Ct. Order, 59 Wis. 2d R1, R139 (1973); 1991 a. 32.
WI Stat § 905.08 (2021)
2021 Wisconsin Statutes & Annotations|Chapter 905 - Evidence — privileges.|905.08 - Trade secrets.

905.08  Trade secrets. A person has a privilege, which may be claimed by the person or the person's agent or employee, to refuse to disclose and to prevent other persons from disclosing a trade secret as defined in s. 134.90 (1) (c), owned by the person, if the allowance of the privilege will not tend to conceal fraud or otherwise work injustice. When disclosure is directed, the judge shall take such protective measure as the interests of the holder of the privilege and of the parties and the furtherance of justice may require.History:  Sup. Ct. Order, 59 Wis. 2d R1, R140 (1973); 1985 a. 236.
WI Stat § 905.09 (2021)
2021 Wisconsin Statutes & Annotations|Chapter 905 - Evidence — privileges.|905.09 - Law enforcement records.

905.09  Law enforcement records. The federal government or a state or a subdivision thereof has a privilege to refuse to disclose investigatory files, reports and returns for law enforcement purposes except to the extent available by law to a person other than the federal government, a state or subdivision thereof. The privilege may be claimed by an appropriate representative of the federal government, a state or a subdivision thereof.History:  Sup. Ct. Order, 59 Wis. 2d R1, R142 (1973).
WI Stat § 905.11 (2021)
2021 Wisconsin Statutes & Annotations|Chapter 905 - Evidence — privileges.|905.11 - Waiver of privilege by voluntary disclosure.

905.11  Waiver of privilege by voluntary disclosure. A person upon whom this chapter confers a privilege against disclosure of the confidential matter or communication waives the privilege if the person or his or her predecessor, while holder of the privilege, voluntarily discloses or consents to disclosure of any significant part of the matter or communication. This section does not apply if the disclosure is itself a privileged communication.History:  Sup. Ct. Order, 59 Wis. 2d R1, R150 (1973); 1987 a. 355; Sup. Ct. Order No. 93-03,179 Wis. 2d xv (1993).Testimony of an accomplice who waived her privilege is admissible even though she had not been tried or granted immunity. State v. Wells, 51 Wis. 2d 477, 187 N.W.2d 328 (1971).A litigant's request to see his or her file that is in the possession of current or former counsel does not waive the attorney-client and work-product privileges and does not allow other parties to the litigation discovery of those files. Borgwardt v. Redlin, 196 Wis. 2d 342, 538 N.W.2d 581 (Ct. App. 1995), 94-2701.A lawyer's voluntary production of documents in response to opposing counsel's discovery request does not constitute a waiver of the attorney-client privilege under this section when the lawyer does not recognize that the documents are subject to the attorney-client privilege and the documents are produced without the consent or knowledge of the client. The agency doctrine does not apply to waiver of attorney-client privilege as it relates to privileged documents. Harold Sampson Trust v. Linda Gale Sampson Trust, 2004 WI 57, 271 Wis. 2d 610, 679 N.W.2d 794, 02-1515.The controlling principle of waiver is the privilege holder's voluntary disclosure of any significant part of the matter or communication. It is clear from the terms of this section that a matter or communication can have several “significant parts." The significance of any portion of a communication is measured by the importance of its subject matter to the overall communication. State v. Schmidt, 2016 WI App 45, 370 Wis. 2d 139, 884 N.W.2d 510, 15-0457.
WI Stat § 905.12 (2021)
2021 Wisconsin Statutes & Annotations|Chapter 905 - Evidence — privileges.|905.12 - Privileged matter disclosed under compulsion or without opportunity to claim privilege.

905.12  Privileged matter disclosed under compulsion or without opportunity to claim privilege. Evidence of a statement or other disclosure of privileged matter is not admissible against the holder of the privilege if the disclosure was (a) compelled erroneously or (b) made without opportunity to claim the privilege.History:  Sup. Ct. Order, 59 Wis. 2d R1, R151 (1973).
WI Stat § 905.13 (2021)
2021 Wisconsin Statutes & Annotations|Chapter 905 - Evidence — privileges.|905.13 - Comment upon or inference from claim of privilege; instruction.

905.13  Comment upon or inference from claim of privilege; instruction. (1) Comment or inference not permitted. The claim of a privilege, whether in the present proceeding or upon a prior occasion, is not a proper subject of comment by judge or counsel. No inference may be drawn therefrom. (2)  Claiming privilege without knowledge of jury. In jury cases, proceedings shall be conducted, to the extent practicable, so as to facilitate the making of claims of privilege without the knowledge of the jury. (3)  Jury instruction. Upon request, any party against whom the jury might draw an adverse inference from a claim of privilege is entitled to an instruction that no inference may be drawn therefrom. (4)  Application; self-incrimination. Subsections (1) to (3) do not apply in a civil case with respect to the privilege against self-incrimination.History:  Sup. Ct. Order, 59 Wis. 2d R1, R153 (1973); 1981 c. 390.The prohibition against allowing comments on or drawing an inference from a third-party witness's refusal to testify on 5th amendment grounds does not deny a criminal defendant's constitutional right to equal protection. State v. Heft, 185 Wis. 2d 289, 517 N.W.2d 494 (1994).
WI Stat § 905.14 (2021)
2021 Wisconsin Statutes & Annotations|Chapter 905 - Evidence — privileges.|905.14 - Privilege in crime victim compensation proceedings.

905.14  Privilege in crime victim compensation proceedings. (1) Except as provided in sub. (2), no privilege under this chapter exists regarding communications or records relevant to an issue of the physical, mental or emotional condition of the claimant or victim in a proceeding under ch. 949 in which that condition is an element. (2) The lawyer-client privilege applies in a proceeding under ch. 949.History:  1979 c. 189.
WI Stat § 905.15 (2021)
2021 Wisconsin Statutes & Annotations|Chapter 905 - Evidence — privileges.|905.15 - Privilege in use of federal tax return information.

905.15  Privilege in use of federal tax return information. (1) An employee of the department of health services, the department of children and families or a county department under s. 46.215, 46.22 or 46.23 or a member of a governing body of a federally recognized American Indian tribe who is authorized by federal law to have access to or awareness of the federal tax return information of another in the performance of duties under s. 49.19 or 49.45 or 7 USC 2011 to 2049 may claim privilege to refuse to disclose the information and the source or method by which he or she received or otherwise became aware of the information. (2) An employee or member specified in sub. (1) may not waive the right to privilege under sub. (1) or disclose federal tax return information or the source of that information except as provided by federal law.History:  1989 a. 31; 1995 a. 27 ss. 7225, 9126 (19), 9130 (4); 1997 a. 3; 2007 a. 20 s. 3779, 9121 (6) (a).
WI Stat § 905.16 (2021)
2021 Wisconsin Statutes & Annotations|Chapter 905 - Evidence — privileges.|905.16 - Communications to veteran mentors.

905.16  Communications to veteran mentors. (1) Definitions. As used in this section:(a) A communication is “confidential" if not intended to be disclosed to 3rd parties other than to those persons present to further the interests of the veteran or member or to persons reasonably necessary for the transmission of the communication.(b) A “veteran mentor" is an individual who meets all of the following criteria:1. Served on active duty in the U.S. armed forces or in forces incorporated in the U.S. armed forces, served in a reserve unit of the U.S. armed forces, or served in the national guard.2. Has successfully completed a judicially approved veterans mentoring training program.3. Has completed a background information form approved by a circuit court judge from a county that is participating in a veterans mentoring program.4. Is on the list of persons authorized by a circuit court judge to provide assistance and advice in a veterans mentoring program.(c) “Veteran or member" means an individual who is serving or has served on active duty in the U.S. armed forces or in forces incorporated in the U.S. armed forces, in a reserve unit of the U.S. armed forces, or in the national guard.(d) “Veterans mentoring program" is a program approved by a circuit court judge to provide assistance and advice to a veteran or member. (2)  General rule of privilege. A veteran or member has a privilege to refuse to disclose and to prevent another from disclosing a confidential communication made by the veteran or member to a veteran mentor while the veteran mentor is acting within the scope of his or her duties under the veterans mentoring program. (3)  Who may claim the privilege. The privilege may be claimed by the veteran or member, by the veteran's or member's guardian or conservator, or by the veteran's or member's personal representative if the veteran or member is deceased. The veteran mentor may claim the privilege on behalf of the veteran or member. The veteran mentor's authority to claim the privilege on behalf of the person is presumed in the absence of evidence to the contrary. (4)  Exception. There is no privilege under this section as to the following:(a) A communication that indicates that the veteran or member plans or threatens to commit a crime or to seriously harm himself or herself.(b) A communication that the veteran or member has agreed in writing to allow to be disclosed as a condition of his or her participation in the veterans mentoring program.History:  2009 a. 210.
WI Stat § 906.01 (2021)
2021 Wisconsin Statutes & Annotations|Chapter 906 - Evidence — witnesses.|906.01 - General rule of competency.

906.01  General rule of competency. Every person is competent to be a witness except as otherwise provided in these rules.History:  Sup. Ct. Order, 59 Wis. 2d R1, R157 (1973); Sup. Ct. Order No. 16-01, 2017 WI 13, 373 Wis. 2d xiii.The “best evidence rule" requires production of a writing to prove its contents. There is no comparable “better evidence rule" that requires the production of an item rather than testimony about the item. York v. State, 45 Wis. 2d 550, 173 N.W.2d 693 (1970).The trial court may not declare a witness incompetent to testify, except as provided in this section. A witness's credibility is determined by the fact finder. State v. Hanson, 149 Wis. 2d 474, 439 N.W.2d 133 (Ct. App. 1989).
WI Stat § 906.02 (2021)
2021 Wisconsin Statutes & Annotations|Chapter 906 - Evidence — witnesses.|906.02 - Lack of personal knowledge.

906.02  Lack of personal knowledge. A witness may not testify to a matter unless evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter. Evidence to prove personal knowledge may, but need not, consist of the testimony of the witness. This rule is subject to the provisions of s. 907.03 relating to opinion testimony by expert witnesses.History:  Sup. Ct. Order, 59 Wis. 2d R1, R160 (1973); 1991 a. 32.The chain of custody to items taken from the defendant's motel room was properly established although a police department laboratory chemist who examined the same was not present to testify when uncontroverted proof showed that the condition of the exhibits had not been altered by the chemist's examination, there was no unexplained or missing link as to who had had custody, and the items were in substantially the same condition at the time of the chemist's examination as when taken from defendant's room. State v. McCarty, 47 Wis. 2d 781, 177 N.W.2d 819 (1970).A challenge to the admissibility of boots on the ground that the victim did not properly identify them was devoid of merit, as it was stipulated that the child said they “could be" the ones she saw. Her lack of certitude did not preclude admissibility, but went to the weight the jury should give to her testimony. Howland v. State, 51 Wis. 2d 162, 186 N.W.2d 319 (1971).