Wisconsin Supreme Court Upholds GPS Spying With Warrant

The Newspaper
by The Newspaper

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]

The Newspaper
The Newspaper

More by The Newspaper

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 8 comments
  • Russycle Russycle on Jul 21, 2010

    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.

  • Ihatetrees Ihatetrees on Jul 21, 2010

    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.

  • Ltcmgm78 Just what we need to do: add more EVs that require a charging station! We own a Volt. We charge at home. We bought the Volt off-lease. We're retired and can do all our daily errands without burning any gasoline. For us this works, but we no longer have a work commute.
  • Michael S6 Given the choice between the Hornet R/T and the Alfa, I'd pick an Uber.
  • Michael S6 Nissan seems to be doing well at the low end of the market with their small cars and cuv. Competitiveness evaporates as you move up to larger size cars and suvs.
  • Cprescott As long as they infest their products with CVT's, there is no reason to buy their products. Nissan's execution of CVT's is lackluster on a good day - not dependable and bad in experience of use. The brand has become like Mitsubishi - will sell to anyone with a pulse to get financed.
  • Lorenzo I'd like to believe, I want to believe, having had good FoMoCo vehicles - my aunt's old 1956 Fairlane, 1963 Falcon, 1968 Montego - but if Jim Farley is saying it, I can't believe it. It's been said that he goes with whatever the last person he talked to suggested. That's not the kind of guy you want running a $180 billion dollar company.
Next