State v. Kelly M. Rindfleisch, 2014 WI App 121; case activity Just how “particular” must a warrant to search a Gmail and Yahoo! Mail be in order to survive the Fourth Amendment’s “particularity” requirement? And does the answer change when the warrant is for searching the email accounts of someone other than the person suspected of the crime… Read more
K. Electronic surveillance
State v. Price G. Turner, III, 2014 WI App 93; case activity A minor does not as a matter of law lack the capacity to consent to police interception of the minor’s conversations with another person and therefore vicarious consent by a parent is not required. After Turner’s 15-year-old daughter told police Turner had been sexually assaulting… Read more
State v. Bobby L. Tate, 2014 WI 89, 7/24/14, affirming an unpublished court of appeals decision; majority opinion by Justice Roggensack; case activity State v. Nicolas Subdiaz-Osorio, 2014 WI 87, 7/24/14, affirming an unpublished per curiam court of appeals decision; lead opinion by Justice Prosser; case activity In two decisions consisting of 8 separate opinions spread out across… Read more
State v. Michael A. Sveum, 2009 WI App 81, affirmed on other grounds, 2010 WI 92 For Sveum: Robert J. Kaiser, Jr. Issue/Holding: The Wisconsin Electronic Surveillance Control Law excludes from coverage “(a)ny communication from a tracking device,” § 968.27(4)(d); a GPS device is such a “tracking device” and, therefore excluded from WESCL coverage… Read more
State v. John David Ohlinger, 2009 WI App 44, PFR filed 4/1/09 For Ohlinger: Suzanne L. Hagopian, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶8 The one-party consent exception reads as follows: (2) It is not unlawful …:…. (b) For a person acting under color of law to intercept a wire, electronic or oral communication, where the person is a party… Read more
State v. John David Ohlinger, 2009 WI App 44, PFR filed 4/1/09 For Ohlinger: Suzanne L. Hagopian, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue: Whether, for purposes of authorizing one-party consent under WESCL, “a person acting under color of law” may be a law enforcement officer. Holding: ¶2 [H]e contends that Wis. Stat. § 968.31(2)(b), commonly referred to as the one-party consent… Read more
State v. Brian Harold Duchow, 2008 WI 57, reversing unpublished decision For Duchow: Melinda A. Swartz, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate Issue: Whether tape-recorded statements were “oral communication” as defined in Wis. Stat. § 968.27(12). Holding: ¶16 The legislative history of Title III indicates that Congress intended the definition of “oral communication” in Title III, which reads nearly identically to the definition… Read more
State v. Brian Harold Duchow, 2008 WI 57, reversing unpublished decision For Duchow: Melinda A. Swartz, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶15 Extrinsic sources include legislative history. Id. The drafting records of the Electronic Surveillance Control Law state that the law “represents Wisconsin implementation of the electronic surveillance portion of [Title III],” the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets… Read more
