State v. Brereton
2013 WI 17
Wis.2013Background
- Brereton and Conaway stopped in a vehicle linked to local burglaries; VIN did not match license plate; vehicle towed to impound for GPS installation under a court order; GPS device installed inside the hood and provided real-time movement data for four days; evidence later seized from the vehicle included a monitor and Brereton held cash during arrest; officers obtained a warrant-authorizing GPS tracking after seizing the vehicle.
- Witness reports described a blue Pontiac Grand Am/Grand Prix with two men seen near burglaries; Illinois plate 8643511 linked to Brereton and Conaway; initial visual surveillance and vehicle attributes connected to burglaries.
- Officers moved the vehicle to a private lot for safe GPS installation; the GPS order authorized covert entry to install, maintain, and surveil the vehicle’s location; the warrant anticipated surveillance of location and fruits of crimes.
- After four days of GPS tracking, the vehicle was located at a Janesville residence where a burglary had occurred, leading to Brereton and Conaway’s arrest and a search of the vehicle.
- Brereton moved to suppress GPS-derived evidence as a Fourth Amendment violation; circuit court denied; court of appeals affirmed; Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals with a majority holding the seizure and GPS execution reasonable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether seizure of the vehicle was lawful under the Fourth Amendment | Brereton argues the tow was unlawful without warrant or probable cause | State contends probable cause supported seizure under automobile exception | Seizure supported by probable cause; permissible under Fourth Amendment |
| Whether GPS execution exceeded the warrant scope by real-time tracking | Brereton claims real-time tracking exceeded warrant limits | State contends real-time data falls within probable scope of warrant | GPS tracking did not exceed warrant scope; reasonable execution under Fourth Amendment |
| Whether Brereton had standing to challenge the search/seizure | Brereton has possessory/privacy interests in the vehicle | State contends no demonstrated ownership/permission; lacks standing | Assumed standing for purposes of discussion; decision affirms suppression against lack of standing not required |
Key Cases Cited
- Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42 (U.S. 1970) (automobile exception permits warrantless seizure when probable cause exists)
- Ross v. United States, 456 U.S. 798 (U.S. 1982) (seizures of automobiles may be warranted without a warrant under certain conditions)
- United States v. Jones, 132 S. Ct. 945 (U.S. 2012) (GPS tracking constitutes a search; warrant required in most cases)
- Sveum v. Wisconsin, 328 Wis. 2d 369 (Wis. 2010) (assumed GPS search implicates Fourth Amendment; pagination in Sveum discussed as comparative)
- United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (U.S. 1983) (beeper surveillance and tracking can raise Fourth Amendment concerns depending on context)