Not forewarned

 

Certified copies of Wisconsin vital record do warn you.

"WARNING: It is a felony to copy or reproduce this certificate - State Statute 69.24(1)"

 

However, their uncertified counterparts (all you typically need for genealogy), do not.

 

All the uncertified versions tell you aside from the record information is that it's an "Uncertified Copy, not valid for identity purposes."  It's been that way since at least 1985 (see Act 315).  

One problem with the antiquated Wisconsin law is that doesn't really recognize the difference with certified vs uncertified copies.  

It seems like an uncertified cannot be used in any conceivable nefarious way, having no legal identity weight..  I believe by continuing to claim you cannot copy an uncertified version under the fear of a felony exceeds what the law was created to do.  

 (69.20(4)):

"the registrar shall protect vital records from mutilation, alteration, theft, or fraudulent use and shall protect the privacy rights of registrants and their families by strictly controlling direct access to any vital record. "  

They'd be controlling indirect access of a former vital record, now generally perceived as a public record.  (Ex, The issuing registrar must redact the cause of death for any uncertified record less than 50 years old before issuing it to the public [69.20(2)(c)])... 

Whatever the case, the back or front for that matter of a uncertified Wisconsin record does not reference any applicable laws.  Which is why I believe that Mens rea could be used in court as a legal argument that potentially being charged with a felony for duplicating a reference copy is invalid. 

It's also likely to argue the laws as they stand are arbitrary and capricious.  What we have is likely the result of inconsistent administrative action.  What we have has a lot of  arbitrary, illogical elements, and lacks uniformity.

This can be grounds for judicial review, as courts may find the action "arbitrary and capricious" or contrary to law, especially if it deviates from past interpretations without a clear, rational explanation. Inconsistency can arise from issues like flawed reasoning, unclear procedures, or the agency's own internal contradiction.