2023 Wisconsin Statutes & Annotations › Chapter 97 - Food, lodging, and recreation. › 97.12 - Enforcement.

97.12
Enforcement.
(1)
For the purpose of enforcing this chapter, the department and its agents may, at reasonable hours, enter and inspect any premises for which a license is required under this chapter or any farm, factory, warehouse, building, room, establishment or place at or in which foods are manufactured, processed, packed, packaged, stored or held for sale, and may enter any vehicle, including a vehicle used to transport or hold foods in commerce. The department and its agents may also secure samples or specimens, including samples or specimens of food and any product or substance that may affect food, examine and copy relevant documents and records, and obtain photographic and other evidence needed to enforce this chapter or a rule promulgated under this chapter. The department shall examine any samples secured and shall conduct other inspections and examinations needed to determine whether there is a violation of this chapter. The department shall pay or offer to pay the market value of samples taken.
(2)
(a)
Whenever any duly authorized inspector of the department has reasonable cause to believe that any food examined by him or her is adulterated or misbranded and is dangerous to health or misleading to the injury or damage of the purchaser or consumer, the inspector shall issue and deliver to the owner or custodian of the food a holding order prohibiting the sale or movement of the food for any purpose until the analysis or examination of the sample obtained has been completed. A holding order may be effective for a period of not longer than 14 days from the time of its delivery, but it may be reissued for one additional 14-day period if necessary to complete the analysis or examination of the food.
(b)
No food described in any such holding order so issued and delivered shall be sold or moved for any purpose without the approval of the department until such analysis or examination has been completed within the time specified in par. (a). If the department upon completed analysis or examination determines that the food described in such holding order is not adulterated or misbranded, then the owner or custodian thereof shall be promptly so notified in writing, and such holding order shall terminate upon such notification.
(c)
Where the analysis or examination shows that the food is adulterated or misbranded and is dangerous to health or misleading to the injury or damage of the purchaser or consumer, the owner or custodian of the food shall be so notified in writing within the effective time of the holding order. Such notice has the effect of a special order issued under s. 93.18. Upon receipt of a notice the food subject to the holding order may not be sold, moved, disposed of or brought into compliance with applicable standards without the approval of the department. If such food is not brought into compliance, sold, moved or disposed of within 30 days, or other agreed upon period of time, from the date the owner or custodian received notice that the food was adulterated or misbranded, the department may issue an order directing the disposition of the food. Such an order has the effect of a special order issued under s. 93.18.
(d)
1.
Any person violating an order issued under this section may be fined not more than the maximum amount under subd. 2. or imprisoned not more than one year in the county jail or both.
2.
The maximum fine under this paragraph equals $10,000 plus the retail value of the product moved, sold or disposed of in violation of the order issued under this section.
(3)
(a)
The department may issue a special order as provided under s. 93.18 to any person engaged in the production, processing, sale or distribution of food if the department finds a violation of this chapter or the rules promulgated under this chapter. An order shall state the violations found and shall specify a fixed period of time for correction. If the department finds that a piece of equipment, a facility or a practice used is a danger to public health, it may order that the situation be abated or eliminated immediately and that the equipment, facility or practice not be used until the violation is corrected and the correction is confirmed by the department. The department may, instead of issuing an order, accept written agreements of voluntary compliance which have the effect of an order.
(b)
The department may, by summary order and without prior notice or hearing, suspend a license or permit issued under this chapter if the department finds that there has been a substantial failure to comply with the applicable requirements of this chapter and the rules promulgated under this chapter and that the continuation of the violations constitutes a serious danger to public health. The order shall be in writing, have the force and effect of an order issued under s. 93.18, and is subject to right of hearing before the department, if requested within 10 days after date of service. Hearings, if requested, shall be conducted within 10 days after receipt of a request for a hearing. Enforcement of the order shall not be stayed pending action on the hearing.
(4)
Any person who does either of the following may be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than one year in the county jail or both:
(a)
Assaults, restrains, threatens, intimidates, impedes, interferes with, or otherwise obstructs a department inspector, employee or agent in the performance of his or her duties.
(b)
Gives false information to a department inspector, employee or agent with the intent to mislead the inspector, employee or agent in the performance of his or her duties.
(5)
Any person who fails to comply with an order issued under this chapter may be required to forfeit $50 for each day of noncompliance.
History:  1971 c. 156; 1983 a. 261; 2015 a. 55.
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).