Search and Seizure — cell phone tracking

Listen to this article

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Criminal

Search and Seizure — cell phone tracking

Where police obtained a warrant to track a cell phone, the evidence seized in a subsequent search is admissible.

“In evaluating Tate’s argument, we assume without deciding that: (1) law enforcement’s activities constituted a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment and Article I, Section 11; and (2) because the tracking led law enforcement to discover Tate’s location within his mother’s home, a warrant was needed. We then conclude that the search was reasonable because it was executed pursuant to an order1 that met the Fourth Amendment’s and Article I, Section 11’s requirements. See State v. Higginbotham, 162 Wis. 2d 978, 989, 471 N.W.2d 24 (1991). We also conclude that specific statutory authorization was not necessary for Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Jeffrey Wagner to issue the order that authorized the procedures used to track Tate’s cell phone because the order was supported by probable cause. Nonetheless, the order did comply with the spirit of Wis. Stat. § 968.12 and Wis. Stat. § 968.135 (2009-10), the search warrant and criminal subpoena statutes, which express legislative choices about procedures to employ for warrants and criminal subpoenas. Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the court of appeals.”

Affirmed.

2012AP336-CR State v. Tate

Ziegler, J.

Attorneys: For Appellant: Lichstein, Byron C., Madison; For Respondent: Kassel, Jeffrey J., Madison; Loebel, Karen A., Milwaukee