Advertisement

What Wisconsin Requires for CO Detectors in Homes and Lodging

Last verified: February 17, 2026

Wisconsin carbon monoxide detector laws are built on statutory requirements in sections 101.647 and 101.149 plus administrative code implementation in SPS 328 and related DSPS guidance. Covered dwelling and lodging contexts generally require functional detectors by floor level, with exemptions tied to the absence of attached-garage, fireplace, or fuel-burning source conditions.

Wisconsin also addresses tampering and ongoing functionality, which means compliance is not only an installation event but a continuing operations duty for owners and occupants in covered units. The practical control model is routine testing, documented notice and response workflow, and turnover verification before occupancy changes.

Wisconsin operators should keep statute and code references together with device maintenance records for each covered property. Logging exemption determinations and periodic review dates also supports ongoing audit continuity.

In 60 Seconds

CO detector requirements for Wisconsin
Applies to homes? Yes
Applies to rentals? Yes
Applies to hotels/STRs? Yes

When Are CO Alarms Required?

  • Buildings with fuel-burning appliances
  • Buildings with attached garages
  • Wisconsin statutory and SPS 328 pathways include exemptions when listed carbon monoxide source conditions are absent.

Where to Install CO Alarms

  • In covered dwellings, detectors are required in the basement and on each floor level except attic garage and storage-only areas.
  • Agency guidance for SPS 328 references sleeping-area proximity and floor-level coverage in covered residential settings.

For detailed placement guidance beyond legal requirements, see where to place carbon monoxide detectors.

Device Requirements

  • Functional detector devices consistent with Wisconsin statute and administrative code requirements.
  • When directly wired, backup battery pathways are required in cited Wisconsin code materials.
  • Device labeling and testing should follow recognized standards referenced in Wisconsin regulatory text and manufacturer instructions.

Landlord and Tenant Responsibilities

Landlord: Owners must install required detectors and respond to written notice when required detectors are nonfunctional in covered settings.

Tenant: Occupants who are not owners are responsible for maintenance duties and written notice when detectors are not functional under cited rule language.

  • Applicability to short-term rental properties should be verified against current occupancy definitions and local enforcement practice.

Enforcement

Enforced by: Local building and code officials with state program oversight in applicable occupancy contexts.

Enforcement typically occurs:

  • During code inspection, complaint response, or occupancy safety review for covered properties.
  • During follow-up after written notice of missing or nonfunctional required detectors.

Penalties for Non-Compliance

The cited Wisconsin sources emphasize installation and maintenance duties plus anti-tampering requirements, but do not provide one stand-alone statewide fine table in the sections used here.

Wisconsin statutory and SPS materials cited here.

Additional Notes

  • Wisconsin compliance should be documented by occupancy type because requirements and enforcement channels can differ.
  • Owners and managers should maintain written notice and response logs for nonfunctional detector reports.

Official Sources & References

Disclaimer: This information is provided for general guidance and is not legal advice. Requirements may vary by city, county, and building type. Always verify current rules with local authorities and official sources.

Frequently Asked Questions

In Wisconsin lodging settings, what placement map should be kept for each sleeping area?
Wisconsin code materials cited here use floor-level placement language that includes basement coverage and excludes certain spaces such as attic and storage-only areas in covered dwelling contexts. Guidance tied to SPS 328 also reinforces sleeping-area and level-based coverage planning. Operators should document each installed location and keep device records by unit. Wisconsin inspection outcomes are stronger when placement decisions and code references are stored together with dated photos or checklists.
How are owner and occupant maintenance duties handled in Wisconsin?
Cited Wisconsin materials assign installation and response duties to owners while requiring non-owner occupants to maintain detectors and provide written notice when devices are not functional. This split should be reflected in lease language, move-in forms, and work-order procedures. Managers should track notice date, response date, and correction completion in one workflow. Wisconsin files with clear duty allocation are easier to defend during disputes and code-inspection follow-up. Keep notice and correction receipts attached to each unit record.
What statewide fine table is listed for Wisconsin noncompliance?
The cited Wisconsin sections used here focus on requirements and anti-tampering obligations but do not present one stand-alone statewide fine table in the same text set. That does not eliminate risk, because unresolved deficiencies can still produce enforcement and liability exposure through local administration. Teams should treat correction timing as a core control and preserve proof of remediation. Wisconsin notices should cite the applicable statute and SPS section for each violation.
Are all-electric Wisconsin units always exempt?
Not always. Wisconsin exemptions are tied to statutory and code conditions, so operators should review attached-garage, fireplace, and fuel-source factors before classifying a unit as outside detector requirements. Exemption decisions should be written and stored with the governing section citation and local interpretation if needed. This prevents inconsistent turnover decisions across portfolios. Wisconsin compliance records should show who approved each exemption and when it was reviewed. Document exemption reevaluation dates after major occupancy changes.
How does Wisconsin compare with Minnesota compliance frameworks?
Wisconsin in this dataset combines sections 101.647 and 101.149 with SPS implementation pathways, while Minnesota operators work from a different statutory and rule blend with its own enforcement profile. Regional teams should use separate Upper Midwest matrices rather than one shared template. For side-by-side planning, review Minnesota CO detector laws and compare trigger language, role allocation, and documentation controls. Wisconsin teams should keep statute references separate from Minnesota rule citations in shared SOPs.

Practical CO Detector Guides

Beyond legal requirements, these guides help you choose, install, and maintain CO alarms:

Advertisement