Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Search and Seizure — GPS tracking

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//February 6, 2013//

Search and Seizure — GPS tracking

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//February 6, 2013//

Listen to this article

Search and Seizure — GPS tracking

It did not violate the Fourth Amendment for officers to seize a vehicle, and then obtain a warrant to install a GPS tracking device.

“First, we conclude that the seizure of Brereton’s vehicle was supported by probable cause that the vehicle was, or contained, evidence of a crime, and was therefore permissible under the Fourth Amendment. The seizure was supported by witnesses’ reports that a car matching the make, model, and license plate number of that particular vehicle had been seen at the locations of recent burglaries in the area. Additionally, after officers lawfully stopped Brereton and his co-defendant Brian Conaway in the suspect vehicle, they discovered that the vehicle identification number (VIN) did not match the license plate, and that the occupants of the vehicle were notably similar to the two men seen at multiple recent burglaries. Accordingly, the three-hour seizure of Brereton’s vehicle, whereby officers were able to install the GPS device, did not constitute an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment, as applied to automobiles. Moreover, in light of Brereton’s Fourth Amendment interest in avoiding government usurpation of his property for the purpose of conducting surveillance on him, the officers’ decision to obtain a warrant prior to conducting the GPS search was proper.”

“We also conclude that the technology used in conducting the GPS search did not exceed the scope of the warrant allowing GPS tracking of Brereton’s vehicle. Judge Carlson issued the warrant based on the probable cause set forth through the facts recited in a detective’s affidavit. The affidavit and warrant’s language contemplated the installation of a GPS device that would track the vehicle’s movements. That the device provided officers with real-time updates of those movements did not alter the kind of information to be obtained under the warrant, or the nature of the intrusion allowed. Therefore, the officers’ execution of the warrant was not unreasonable.

Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the court of appeals.”

Affirmed.

2010AP1366-CR State v. Brereton

Roggensack, J.

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

Full Text

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests