2010AP1366-CR State v. Brereton

Listen to this article

Search and Seizure
GPS devices

Where a vehicle had been lawfully impounded and was connected to a series of burglaries, police acted lawfully in obtaining a search warrant and attaching a GPS tracking device to the vehicle.

“We hold that the police were operating reasonably and within their discretion when they attached a GPS device to Brereton’s car. They took the time to obtain a warrant. The warrant authorized them to put a GPS device on the car to monitor the car’s whereabouts. Unlike the device used in Sveum I and II, the GPS device in this case was only in use for four days (until the police obtained information they could use). And the fact that there was a warrant and that the device was in play for only four days is what distinguishes the facts of this case from United States v. Maynard, 615 F.3d 544 (D.C. Cir. 2010), cert granted, United States v. Jones, No. 10-1259, 2011 WL 1456728 (June 27, 2011), a case heavily relied on by Brereton. In that case, the court emphasized the level of intrusion involved when the police, without a warrant, attached a GPS device to the defendant’s car and monitored his whereabouts ‘24 hours a day for four weeks.’ Id. at 562-64. Under the facts of this case, however, we see no reason to find that the police overstepped their bounds simply because they were able to monitor the movements in real time rather than needing to continually return to the car, remove the device, and download its information to a computer. Though we can envision scenarios where prolonged use of this device might be unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment, we do not believe this case crosses the line.”

Affirmed.

Recommended for publication in the official reports.

2010AP1366-CR State v. Brereton

Dist. II, Walworth County, Gibbs, J., Brown, J.

Attorneys: For Appellant: Pinix, Matthew S., Milwaukee; For Respondent: Koss, Phillip A., Elkhorn; O’Brien, Daniel J., Madison

Full Text