N. PATRICK CROOKS, J.
¶ 1. Charles W Mark (Mark) seeks review of a court of appeals' opinion1 affirming in part and reversing in part a circuit court decision to admit four statements Mark had made to his [7]*7parole officer at his Wis. Stat. ch. 980 (2003-04)2 commitment hearing. Mark challenges the court of appeals' holding that only two of the four challenged statements should have been excluded pursuant to the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution,3 because he claims that all four statements were both compelled and incriminating, as well as being testimonial. See State v. Zanelli (Zanelli II), 223 Wis. 2d 545, 589 N.W.2d 687 (Ct. App. 1998). In addition, Mark challenges the court of appeals' determination that the circuit court properly excluded evidence concerning the conditions of his probation as not relevant to a determination of whether Mark is a sexually violent person pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 980.01(7).
¶ 2. We affirm the decision of the court of appeals and remand this case for further proceedings. In doing so, we conclude that Wis. Stat. § 980.05(lm) grants a ch. 980 respondent the same rights at his or her ch. 980 commitment trial as a defendant is entitled to in a criminal case. We hold that in order for a statement to be properly excluded under the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment's due process [8]*8clause, it must be testimonial, compelled, and incriminating. We further determine that while an individual has a prepetition or prearrest right against self-incrimination, that right is ordinarily not self-executing and must be invoked. Therefore, we withdraw any language to the contrary in State v. Zanelli (Zanelli I), 212 Wis. 2d 358, 569 N.W.2d 301 (Ct. App. 1997). Finally, we conclude that the conditions of Mark's probation are irrelevant to the determination of whether or not he is a sexually violent person pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 980.01(7) and were therefore properly excluded by the circuit court.
H-l
¶ 3. The relevant facts are not in dispute. Mark was convicted in 1994 of three counts of sexually assaulting a child, and sentenced to eight years of confinement, followed by two 15-year terms of probation, to be served consecutively to the confinement, but concurrently to one another. Mark was released on parole in May 1999 but his parole was revoked in June 2000 and he was sent back to prison to serve the rest of his confinement. On June 28, 2002, just before his scheduled release, the State of Wisconsin (State) filed a petition alleging that Mark was a sexually violent person under Wis. Stat. § 980.01(7).
¶ 4. At trial, the State offered into evidence four statements made by Mark to his parole officer. The first two were handwritten, signed admissions by Mark that he had violated the terms of his parole. Each was written on a form, at the top of which provided:
PROBATIONER/PAROLEE/OFFENDER I have been advised that I must account in a truthful and accurate manner for my whereabouts and activities, and that [9]*9failure to do so is a violation for which I could be revoked. I have also been advised that none of this information can be used against me in criminal proceedings.
¶ 5. In his first statement, dated September 8, 1999, Mark described his contact with a woman he met at church. According to the report, Mark talked with this woman on her porch, and watched her fold her underclothes and breastfeed her baby. In the statement, Mark also admitted to telephoning the woman twice. This conduct violated the rules of Mark's supervision, which prohibited him from having a relationship with a woman without permission.
¶ 6. In Mark's second written report, dated April 28, 2000, Mark described an incident involving a woman living next door to him in his hotel. The report began "I screwed up big," and described entering his neighbor's room without permission, and upon finding her in the bathroom, trying to forcibly gain entrance to that room for about five or ten minutes, while she yelled "get out of here" about three times. Mark's statement claimed that he only wanted to see his neighbor naked, and that he reported the incident because the woman threatened to call the police. Mark verbally reported the incident to his parole officer on April 25, 2000, after which an apprehension request was issued. Mark voluntarily turned himself into police that same day. Although his parole had not yet been revoked formally, Mark was in police custody at the time he made his written statement regarding the hotel incident. Mark's parole was subsequently revoked as a result of this incident.
¶ 7. In addition to his two written statements, two oral statements Mark made to his parole officer were also entered into evidence at his ch. 980 commit[10]*10ment trial. In the first, made approximately two weeks after his written description of the hotel incident with his neighbor in her bathroom, Mark admitted that his real motivation had been to have sex with his neighbor. In the second, in a Violation Investigation Report dated February 18, 2000, Mark's parole officer noted that Mark had orally admitted to prior sexual activity with his stepson — conduct for which Mark had already been charged and convicted in 1994.
¶ 8. At Mark's ch. 980 hearing, the circuit court allowed into evidence the four statements Mark made to his parole officer.
¶ 9. At the time of his commitment hearing, Mark had begun to serve his concurrent 15-year terms of probation. At trial, Mark sought to introduce evidence regarding the conditions of his probation, including the rules of supervision to which he would be subjected. The circuit court denied Mark's request and, instead, granted the State's motion in limine asking the court to prohibit "any evidence, direct or indirect, concerning any probation or parole supervision, conditions of confinement, or other restrictions, which could be imposed on the respondent in the future, on the grounds that such evidence is irrelevant and inadmissible under Wis. Stat. § 904.02." At trial, Mark was allowed to establish that he was on probation and would be for 15 years, but was not permitted to produce evidence as to the conditions of his probation supervision. A jury found Mark to be a sexually violent person under Wis. Stat. § 980.01(7).
¶ 10. On appeal, Mark challenged the admission of the four statements, and the exclusion of the conditions of his probation supervision. The court of appeals determined that the statements concerning the woman on her porch and the sexual activity with his stepson were properly admitted into evidence at Mark's ch. 980 [11]*11commitment trial, as they were not incriminating under the definition employed in Zanelli II, and therefore did not properly fall within the Fifth Amendment privilege. The court of appeals further concluded that the written and oral statements regarding the incident in the hotel room were incriminating under the Zanelli II definition, and remanded the case to the circuit court for a determination of whether the statements were also compelled, and should therefore be properly excluded under the Fifth Amendment, and also for a harmless error analysis if there was compulsion. The court of appeals also held that the circuit court properly excluded evidence of the conditions of Mark's probation as not relevant to the determination of whether or not Mark was a sexually violent person under Wis. Stat. § 980.01(7). Mark petitioned this court for review.
( — I HH
¶ 11. The State argued at the court of appeals that Mark waived the right to raise the issue of the admissibility of his statements, since he did not object at the circuit court to the admission of such statements. See State v. Mark, 2005 WI App 62, ¶ 13, 280 Wis. 2d 436, 701 N.W.2d 598. Although we generally decline to address issues raised for the first time on appeal, we have the authority to do so. See State v. Moran, 2005 WI 115, ¶ 31, 284 Wis. 2d 24, 700 N.W.2d 884. Because both the State and the defendant have asked us to clarify the issues raised on appeal, we will address them here.
A
¶ 12. Whether Mark's statements to his parole officer should have been excluded from his ch. 980 [12]*12commitment trial, pursuant to Mark's Fifth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment rights against self-incrimination, involves the meaning of Wis. Stat. § 980.05(lm). Statutory interpretation is a question of law which this court reviews de novo, although benefiting from the analysis of the circuit court and the court of appeals. State v. Lombard (Lombard I), 2004 WI 95, ¶ 17, 273 Wis. 2d 538, 684 N.W.2d 103. We also review, de novo, the application of constitutional principles to established facts. See State v. Turner, 136 Wis. 2d 333, 344, 401 N.W.2d 827 (1987).
¶ 13. Mark reasons that Wis. Stat. § 980.05(lm) grants individuals who are the subject of a ch. 980 petition the same rights as those available to a defendant in a criminal case. Therefore, it is Mark's position that, just as criminal defendants are protected by the Fifth Amendment privilege against compelled self-incrimination, the statements Mark made to his parole officer are prohibited from being introduced at his ch. 980 trial. Mark urges this court to adopt a rule that a compelled statement may never be used against a defendant at a ch. 980 commitment trial.4
[13]*13¶ 14. It is the State's position that the court of appeals correctly relied on Zanelli II in holding that Mark's statements must be both compelled and incriminating in order to gain the protections of the Fifth Amendment. While the State acknowledges that Wis. Stat. § 980.05(lm) grants Mark the same rights at trial as a defendant in a criminal case, the State maintains that the Fifth Amendment only protects statements that are both compelled and incriminating.
¶ 15. Wisconsin Stat. § 980.05(lm) provides: "[a]t the trial to determine whether the person who is the subject of a petition under s. 980.02 is a sexually violent person, all rules of evidence in criminal actions apply. All constitutional rights available to a defendant in a criminal proceeding are available to the person." Wis. Stat. § 980.05(lm).5
[14]*14¶ 16. Among the rights granted a defendant in a criminal proceeding is the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides, in pertinent part, "[n]o person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.. .." U.S. Const, amend. V6 As the United States Supreme Court noted in Minnesota v. Murphy:
It has long been held that this prohibition not only permits a person to refuse to testify against himself at a criminal trial in which he is a defendant, but also "privileges him not to answer official questions put to him in any other proceeding, civil or criminal, formal or informal, where the answers might incriminate him in future criminal proceedings."
Minnesota v. Murphy, 465 U.S. 420, 426 (1984) (citing Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 77 (1973)). It is also well-established in Fifth Amendment jurisprudence that "[t]he Fifth Amendment prohibits only compelled testimony that is incriminating." Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177, 189 (2004)(citing Brown v. Walker, 161 U.S. 591, 598 (1896)). In other words, when a defendant seeks to exclude prior statements based upon his or her Fifth Amendment privilege, he or she must first establish that the statements at issue are 1) testimonial; 2) compelled; and 3) incriminating. See id. Therefore, we reject Mark's argument [15]*15that the mere fact that a statement is compelled requires it be excluded from a ch. 980 commitment trial.7
¶ 17. It is Mark's further contention that the statements at issue regarding the hotel bathroom incident are, on their face, compelled as he was in custody at the time they were made, and he was required to report truthfully to his parole officer, or face possible revocation. Therefore, Mark believes that remand to the circuit court for determination of whether there was compulsion is unnecessary.
¶ 18. Although the United States Supreme Court has recognized police custody as "[a] well-known exception to the general rule" that an individual must assert his Fifth Amendment "privilege rather than answer if he desires not to incriminate himself," a defendant's custody status alone is not sufficient to determine whether the statements were, in fact, compelled. Murphy, 465 U.S. at 429.
¶ 19. We next consider the scope of the Fifth Amendment privilege in the context of Wis. Stat. ch. 980. There are three Wisconsin cases that have ad[16]*16dressed the applicability of various aspects of the Fifth Amendment privilege in regard to a ch. 980 trial reviewing Wis. Stat. § 980.05(lm). We will examine each in turn.
¶ 20. In Zanelli I, the court of appeals considered the right of the petitioner to exclude the testimony of a state psychologist to the effect that Zanelli had refused to participate in the psychologist's prepetition evaluation of him. Zanelli I, 212 Wis. 2d at 369. Noting that " '[t]he Fifth Amendment protects a person from compelled self-incrimination at all times, not just upon arrest or during a custodial interrogation,'" the court of appeals concluded that Zanelli's right to remain silent would be violated if the prosecution were allowed to comment on his prearrest silence unless he chose to testify. Id. at 371-72 (citing State v. Fencl, 109 Wis. 2d 224, 236, 325 N.W.2d 703 (1982)).
¶ 21. In Zanelli II, petitioner challenged the admissibility of statements he had made to his probation officers and to a police officer. Zanelli II, 223 Wis. 2d at 567. Zanelli argued that "his statements to probation officers were compelled by the threat of loss of liberty associated with both the presentence investigative process and probation supervision." Because the court of appeals concluded that the statements at issue were not incriminating, in the sense that they could not be used to "incriminate him in a pending or subsequent criminal prosecution," it deemed them not protected by the Fifth Amendment, and therefore properly admitted by the circuit court. Id. at 550, 568.
¶ 22. In Lombard I, this court considered "whether a person such as Lombard is entitled to receive Miranda warnings prior to being interviewed by a State evaluator in regard to whether a ch. 980 petition should be filed." Lombard I, 273 Wis. 2d 538, ¶ 16. [17]*17Petitioner contended that he was entitled to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) warnings prior to his pre-petition evaluation with the State's psychologist in regard to whether a ch. 980 petition should be filed." Id., ¶ 2. Noting that Wis. Stat. § 980.05(lm) plainly contains the language "at the trial," the Lombard I court held that "such constitutional rights would apply at Lombard's ch. 980 trial," but not in his prepetition evaluation. Id.
¶ 23. In its analysis, the Lombard I court cited both Zanelli I and Zanelli II with approval. Lombard I noted that Zanelli I was correct in its conclusion that "a person subject to a pre-petition evaluation has the right to remain silent pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 980.05(lm)," but cautioned that "Lombard's claim that Zanelli I supports his position that Miranda warnings are required prior to a pre-petition interview is too great a stretch." Lombard I, 273 Wis. 2d 538, ¶ 40.
¶ 24. Examining Zanelli I in light of the United States Supreme Court's decision in Murphy, we now conclude that the language in Zanelli I sweeps too broadly in declaring that " '[t]he Fifth Amendment protects a person from compelled self-incrimination at all times. . . .'" Zanelli I, 212 Wis. 2d at 371 (citing Fencl, 109 Wis. 2d at 236). While we agree with the Zanelli I court that the Fifth Amendment guarantee against self-incrimination extends to prearrest silence and that Wis. Stat. § 980.05(lm) gives ch. 980 respondents the same constitutional rights as criminal defendants at trial, Murphy reaffirms the general rule that the Fifth Amendment privilege must be asserted in all but "certain well-defined situations." Murphy, 465 U.S. at 429.
¶ 25. In Murphy, the United States Supreme Court considered whether the Fifth and Fourteenth [18]*18Amendments to the United States Constitution prohibit the introduction into evidence of incriminating admissions Murphy made during a meeting with his probation officer. Id. at 422. The Court began its analysis by stating that:
a witness protected by the. privilege [against self-incrimination] may rightfully refuse to answer unless and until he is protected at least against the use of his compelled answers and evidence derived therefrom in any subsequent criminal case in which he is a defendant. ... Absent such protection, if he is nevertheless compelled to answer, his answers are inadmissible against him in a later criminal prosecution.
Id. at 426 (citing Lefkowitz, 414 U.S. at 78). The Court went on to note that:
the general obligation to appear and answer questions truthfully did not itself convert [] otherwise voluntary statements into compelled ones. In that respect, Murphy was in no better position than the ordinary witness at a trial or before a grand jury who is subpoenaed, sworn to tell the truth, and obligated to answer on the pain of contempt, unless he invokes the privilege and shows that he faces a realistic threat of self-incrimination. The answers of such a witness to questions put to him are not compelled within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment unless the witness is required to answer over his valid claim of the privilege.
Id. at 427. Therefore, the mere fact that an individual is required to appear and report truthfully to his or her probation (or parole) officer is insufficient to establish compulsion.
¶ 26. After examining the case law on what constitutes compulsion for purposes of the Fifth Amendment, the United States Supreme Court concluded that "[t]he answers of such a witness to questions put to him [19]*19are not compelled within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment unless the witness is required to answer over his valid claim of the privilege." Id. (emphasis added). Therefore, the Court reasoned, cases addressing this issue, "taken together, 'stand for the proposition that, in the ordinary case, if a witness under compulsion to testify makes disclosures instead of claiming the privilege, the government has not "compelled" him to incriminate himself.'" Id. (citing Garner v. United States, 424 U.S. 648, 654 (1976)). Thus, "a witness confronted with questions that the government should reasonably expect to elicit incriminating evidence ordinarily must assert the privilege rather than answer if he desires not to incriminate himself." Id. at 429. If, however, the witness chooses to answer, "his choice is considered to be voluntary since he was free to claim the privilege..." with only a few well-established exceptions to the general rule. Id.
¶ 27. Therefore, in a prepetition or prearrest situation, in order for an individual to effectively invoke his or her Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination, he or she must ordinarily assert the privilege.8 We hereby withdraw any language in Zanelli I that conflicts with the United States Supreme Court's decision in Murphy.
[20]*20B
¶ 28. In order to evaluate the applicability of the Fifth Amendment to the individual statements Mark seeks to exclude, we must first determine whether each of the statements is incriminating. Since a statement made by a probationer or parolee to his or her probation/parole officer may be admissible in a subsequent criminal proceeding, it is appropriate to apply the Fifth Amendment analysis to the statements at issue here. See Murphy, 456 U.S. at 440.9 We again note that the ch. 980 commitment hearing for Mark, while a civil proceeding, involved the same rights as those available to a defendant in a criminal case. See Wis. Stat. § 980.05(lm). If a statement is not incriminating, we need not reach the issue of whether the statement was compelled, as statements must be both incriminating and compelled in order to fall within the Fifth Amendment privilege.10 See Hiibel, 542 U.S. at 189.
¶ 29. In Zanelli II, the court of appeals defined "incriminating" as such "statements [that] could in[21]*21criminate [one] in a pending or subsequent criminal prosecution... Zanelli II, 223 Wis. 2d at 568. Mark argues that the court of appeals' reliance on the definition of incriminating in Zanelli II is inappropriate in light of a footnote in the United States Supreme Court decision in Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (1980), which suggests a different definition, although in regard to the term "incriminating response."
¶ 30. In Innis, the United States Supreme Court considered the meaning of "interrogation" under Miranda v. Arizona.11 Innis, 446 U.S. at 297. In a footnote, the Court articulated what it believed constituted an incriminating response by stating: "[b]y 'incriminating response' we refer to any response— whether inculpatory or exculpatory — that the prosecution may seek to introduce at trial." Id. at 302 n.5 (emphasis in original). The flaw in Mark's argument is that the Innis definition of "incriminating response" necessarily contemplates the use of statements by the prosecution in a criminal trial. In such circumstances, it is reasonable to infer that any statement of the defendant that the prosecution might seek to admit would have the tendency to incriminate or inculpate the defendant. The same cannot be said in a ch. 980 civil commitment trial, where the object of the proceeding is to determine the likelihood the defendant will commit a future act of sexual violence, not to convict him of a crime. Outside of the criminal context, the rationale behind the Innis definition loses its force. Therefore, for purposes of a ch. 980 trial, we conclude that the definition of incriminating adopted by the court of appeals in Zanelli II is the appropriate one.
[22]*22¶ 31. We first consider Mark's oral admission to his parole officer concerning his sexual activity with his stepson. Because this conduct related to the offenses for which Mark was already charged and convicted, we conclude, as did the court of appeals, that it could not subject Mark to future criminal prosecution. We, therefore, agree with the court of appeals that the statement was properly admitted by the circuit court.
¶ 32. Next, we turn to Mark's written statement concerning his interactions with the woman from his church. Although such contact was a violation of the rules of his parole, the conduct, in and of itself, was not criminal in nature. Therefore, as it could not subject Mark to a future criminal prosecution, but could merely be used against him in a parole revocation proceeding, we conclude that the statement was not incriminating. We agree with the court of appeals' decision that the statement was properly admitted at Mark's ch. 980 trial.
¶ 33. Finally, we turn to the two statements — one written, one oral — concerning the hotel bathroom incident. In the written statement, Mark admitted to entering his neighbor's hotel room without permission, and upon finding her in the bathroom, trying to forcibly gain entrance to that room against her protestations. In the oral statement, Mark indicated that his motivation in the hotel bathroom incident was to have sex with his neighbor. Again, we agree with the court of appeals that the admissions could serve as the basis for one or more possible charges such as the charge of attempted sexual assault. As the statements, themselves, appear to be admissions upon which criminal charges could be [23]*23based, we remand the case for a determination of whether there was compulsion. As the court of appeals noted, "[a]t a minimum, the written statement could subject Mark to prosecution for disorderly conduct under Wis. Stat. § 947.01." Mark, 280 Wis. 2d 436, ¶ 28. Since the statements could subject Mark to future criminal prosecution, they were incriminating.12 See Zanelli II, 223 Wis. 2d at 568.
[24]*24¶ 34. We conclude that the statements involving the incident at the hotel require us to remand the matter to the circuit court, in order to determine whether those statements were compelled. If the circuit court determines that either or both statements were compelled, and thus should have been excluded pursuant to the Fifth Amendment, the court must also engage in a harmless error analysis. Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 295 (1991).13
hH I — f
¶ 35. The second issue before this court is whether the circuit court properly exercised its discre[25]*25tion in excluding evidence of the conditions of Mark's probation supervision from his ch. 980 commitment trial. In most cases, the exercise of a circuit court's discretion is reviewed under a deferential standard. State v. Richard G.B., 2003 WI App 13, ¶ 7, 259 Wis. 2d 730, 656 N.W.2d 469. However, as this case involves the court's construction of Wis. Stat. § 980.01(7) and related provisions, we are presented with a question of law which we review de novo. Id.
¶ 36. We have consistently held that statutory interpretation " 'begins with the language of the statute. . . .'" State ex rel. Kalal v. Circuit Court for Dane County, 2004 WI 58, ¶ 45, 271 Wis. 2d 633, 681 N.W.2d 110 (citations omitted). In construing a statute, we give the statutory language "its common, ordinary, and accepted meaning, except that technical or specially-defined words or phrases are given their technical or special definitional meaning." Id. (citations omitted).
¶ 37. Wisconsin Stat. § 980.01(7) defines "sexually violent person" as:
a person who has been convicted of a sexually violent offense, has been adjudicated delinquent for a sexually violent offense, or has been found not guilty of or not responsible for a sexually violent offense by reason of insanity or mental disease, defect, or illness, and who is dangerous because he or she suffers from a mental disorder that makes it likely that the person will engage in acts of sexual violence.
Wis. Stat. § 980.01(7)(emphasis added). "Mental disorder," in turn, "means a congenital or acquired condition affecting the emotional or volitional capacity that predisposes a person to engage in acts of sexual violence." [26]*26Wis. Stat. § 980.01(2). Finally, "likely" is defined in the statutes as "more likely than not." Wis. Stat. § 980.01(lm).
¶ 38. Mark contends that the circuit court's exclusion of evidence concerning the conditions of his probation supervision constituted error, as the conditions (such as degree of supervision) are relevant in regard to his future dangerousness, which is an element in the statutory definition of a sexually violent person. See Wis. Stat. § 980.01(7).
¶ 39. There have been two recent court of appeals' decisions addressing similar issues to those raised by Mark. In State v. Lombard (Lombard IT), the court of appeals determined that the circuit court had not erred when, during a ch. 980 trial, it refused to answer the jury's question which asked whether Lombard would remain under supervision, even if the jury was to find he was not sexually violent. State v. Lombard (Lombard II), 2004 WI App 52, ¶ 6, 271 Wis. 2d 529, 678 N.W.2d 338. The circuit court's refusal was based upon its conclusion that such evidence was irrelevant to the jury's task, which was to determine whether Lombard was still a sexually violent person. In order to answer that question, the jury had to decide whether Lombard had a mental disorder that made it substantially probable that he would engage in future acts of sexual violence. Id., ¶ 16. Because it concluded that the question of Lombard's supervision in the absence of a ch. 980 commitment was irrelevant to the question before the jury, the court of appeals concluded that the circuit court properly exercised its discretion when the court refused to answer the jury's question. Id., ¶ 21.
¶ 40. Additionally, in State v. Thiel, the court of appeals determined that an independent examiner's recommendation that a ch. 980 committee be placed on [27]*27supervised release did not provide the probable cause necessary to warrant a full evidentiary hearing as to whether the committee was still a "sexually violent person" under § 980.01(7). State v. Thiel, 2004 WI App 140, 275 Wis. 2d 421, 685 N.W.2d 890. The court of appeals rejected Thiel's argument that the recommendation for supervised release constituted strong evidence that he was no longer sexually violent under chapter 980, stating:
By the plain language of the statute, the question at the probable cause hearing is not whether the individual is substantially probable to engage in acts of sexual violence if placed on supervised release or even if discharged from commitment; the statute draws no such distinction. Rather, the question at the probable cause stage is simply whether it is substantially probable that the person will engage in acts of sexual violence without regard to any specific restrictions, supervision or time frame. It is a black-and-white determination — it is either substantially probable that the person will engage in acts of sexual violence or it is not.
Id., ¶ 17.
¶ 41. The decision in Thiel lends support to our conclusion that the plain language of Wis. Stat. § 980.01(7) makes the existence of a mental disorder— not any extrinsic factors — the first step in determining dangerousness and the substantial probability of the person engaging in future acts of sexual violence. Therefore, we affirm the decision of the court of appeals, upholding the circuit court's exclusion of the conditions of Mark's probation supervision from his chapter 980 trial because, under the terms of § 980.01(7), such evi[28]*28dence was irrelevant in determining whether he was a "sexually violent person."
IV
¶ 42. In conclusion, we affirm the decision of the court of appeals and remand this case for further proceedings. In doing so, we conclude that Wis. Stat. § 980.05(lm) grants a ch. 980 respondent the same rights at the ch. 980 commitment trial as a defendant is entitled to in a criminal case. We hold that in order for a statement to be properly excluded under the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause, it must be testimonial, compelled and incriminating. We further determine that while an individual has a prepetition or prearrest right against self-incrimination, that right is ordinarily not self-executing and must be invoked. Therefore, we withdraw any language to the contrary in Zanelli I, 212 Wis. 2d 358. Finally, we conclude that the conditions of Mark's probation are irrelevant to the determination of whether or not he is a sexually violent person pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 980.01(7) and were therefore properly excluded by the circuit court.
By the court. The decision of the court of appeals is affirmed, and the case is remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings in accord with this opinion.