Wisconsin Supreme Court Upholds GPS Spying With Warrant
Wisconsin’s highest court yesterday approved police use of Global Positioning System (GPS) devices to track motorists, as long as a valid search warrant is obtained. In 2003, Madison Police Detective Mary Ricksecker attached a tracking device to the 1980 Chevy Beretta as it sat on the private driveway belonging to Michael A. Sveum, then age 35. Sveum was suspected of stalking his ex-girlfriend, Jamie Johnson based on nine hang-up calls that were placed at payphones around the city. The tracking device was eventually used to connect Sveum to the time and place of other calls.
Sveum argued that this method of tracking was illegal because the Fourth Amendment protected him against unreasonable searches. The state countered that police are free to attach a GPS device to track a vehicle on public roads because the same information would have been available to any human officers stationed to observe the streets. As this was the prosecution’s only argument, the court of appeals last year upheld the use of GPS without a warrant ( view opinion). The supreme court took a different view, and considered whether the warrant that a judge issued in Sveum’s case was valid.
“We exercise our discretion to reach this issue, rather than deem it waived,” Justice Patience Drake Roggensack wrote for the majority. “We conclude that the order authorizing the installation and monitoring of a GPS tracking device on Sveum’s vehicle was a valid search warrant under the Fourth Amendment. First, the order was signed by a neutral and detached magistrate. Second, Ricksecker’s affidavit provided probable cause… Finally, the order particularly described the object into which the GPS was to be placed, i.e., Sveum’s vehicle; the circumstances that led agents to seek to install the GPS, i.e., evidence of Sveum’s stalking activities; and the length of time for which GPS surveillance was requested, i.e., no more than 60 days.”
The court dodged the question of whether warrantless spying was allowed.
“We elect not to resolve the first issue, and assume, without deciding, that a search or seizure occurred in this case that required authorization by a warrant,” Roggensack wrote.
Justice N. Patrick Crooks feared the majority decision could undermine constitutional protections.
“Given the increased prevalence of GPS devices used in day-to-day activities and the speed with which technological advances expand the ability and ways in which a person or object can be tracked, I believe that expanding this holding to other uses or other devices could have the potential to weaken protections guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment…” Crooks wrote.
Several Justices called on the legislature to impose limits on how GPS systems might be used.
“The myriad of technical, legal and policy issues involved in electronic surveillance lend themselves to legislative resolution, not ad hoc judicial authorizations or a bewilderingly complex judicial attempt to shoehorn the possibilities of new surveillance technologies into the parameters of statutes that were never meant to accommodate them,” Justice Shirley S. Abrahamson wrote in a dissenting opinion.
A copy of the decision is available in a PDF file at the source link below.
Wisconsin v. Sveum (Supreme Court, State of Wisconsin, 7/21/2010)
[Courtesy: Thenewspaper.com]
More by The Newspaper
Latest Car Reviews
Read moreLatest Product Reviews
Read moreRecent Comments
- SCE to AUX It's fun when liberal interests fight each other.
- Varezhka Suzuki Jimny, Toyota Century, and I know it technically just ended production but Honda e.
- CoastieLenn For those that care to read the details of the crash NOT included in this article but published elsewhere- this happened at nearly 10pm when the CRV was stopped in the center lane of travel, lights off, with the driver remaining in the car. Not only is it not known if Blue Cruise was being used, it would have been a nightmare for most alert human drivers to mitigate that driving the 70+mph speed limit on many sections of I-10 in Texas, much less an AV system.
- Jeff This is what I would want: Toyota has now released an affordable truck called the Toyota IMV 0. The newly developed vehicle made in Thailand comes with a rear-wheel drive and a gasoline 2.0-liter inline-four matched to a 5-speed manual transmission. NEW $10,000 Toyota Pickup Has Ford & GM Crapping ... YouTube · Tech Machine 8 minutes, 46 seconds Dec 26, 2023
- Jalop1991 At the same time, let's take these drivers off the road--at least the ones that haven't yet taken themselves off the road.I can guarantee, at no point was this guy or any of the dead Tesla-stans actually driving the car. They were staring at their phones, because, HEY, SELF DRIVING!!
Comments
Join the conversation
I'm disturbed by the fact that, rather than arguing that the warrant gave them the right to install the GPS, the state claimed the right to track anyone (and hence everyone) via GPS. The court made the correct call in this case. Trusting the legislature to get this right is scary, but I don't see another option.
As long as a warrant is involved, this isn't much of a problem. However... “The myriad of technical, legal and policy issues involved in electronic surveillance lend themselves to legislative resolution, not ad hoc judicial authorizations or a bewilderingly complex judicial attempt to shoehorn the possibilities of new surveillance technologies into the parameters of statutes that were never meant to accommodate them,” Justice Shirley S. Abrahamson wrote in a dissenting opinion. There IS a need for legislative guidance here - if for no other reason than to reassure the public. Long term storage and security of digital search records should be discussed - especially when it comes to video surveillance where there's no prosecution. Corruption or modification of electronic records could really turn the public off on this.