State v. Bobby L. Tate
2014 Wisc. LEXIS 697
| Wis. | 2014Background
- Law enforcement tracked Tate's cell phone via cell site location information and a stingray after obtaining a pen register/trap and trace order and subscriber information.
- Tracking led detectives to Tate's mother's apartment where they knocked on doors and found Tate sleeping in a back bedroom with the phone and related evidence.
- Tate moved to suppress the evidence, arguing the tracking was an unlawful search and the order lacked statutory authority.
- The circuit court denied suppression; the court of appeals affirmed; the Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmance followed.
- The lead opinion assumed the tracking was a search and held the tracking under a valid warrant complied with Fourth Amendment requirements and related statutes, denying a need for explicit statutory authority beyond probable cause.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether tracking a cell phone via cell-site data and stingray is a search | Tate: tracking intrudes privacy and is a search | State: assumes but does not resolve if a search occurred; posture governs | Court assumes a search for analysis and proceeds to reasonableness |
| Whether the warrant-based tracking had probable cause and proper issuance | Tate: affidavit insufficient for probable cause | State: probable cause shown; magistrate properly concluded | Probable cause found; warrant issuance upheld |
| Whether statutory authority was required for the order | Tate: statutes did not authorize such tracking | State: no explicit statutory authorization needed given probable cause | Order upheld as compliant with spirit of applicable statutes and probable cause |
| Whether the order satisfied the particularity requirement | Tate: lacks a precise location described | State: electronic serial number suffices for particularity | Particularity satisfied by ESN-based targeting of the device |
| Whether use of cell-site data and stingray complied with statutory subpoena/warrant framework | Tate: failure to follow § 968.135 invalidates warrant | State: statutes provide framework; noncompliance does not always invalidate | Warrant valid under statutory framework; substantial rights not prejudiced |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Higginbotham, 162 Wis. 2d 978 (Wis. 1991) (probable cause standard for tracking orders)
- State v. Sveum, 328 Wis. 2d 369 (Wis. 2010) (warrant language and constitutional requirements)
- State v. Brereton, 345 Wis. 2d 563 (Wis. 2013) (GPS tracking is a search; warrants required)
- United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (U.S. 2012) (GPS device attachment as a search under trespass/privacy doctrines)
- Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473 (U.S. 2014) (cell phones contain extensive private information; warrant required for contents)