Police tracking cell phones a violation of privacy? Wisconsin Supreme Court says "no"
Police tracking cell phones a violation of privacy? Wisconsin Supreme Court says “no”
Police tracking cell phones a violation of privacy? Wisconsin Supreme Court says "no"
MADISON (WITI) -- The Wisconsin Supreme Court sides with police in a pair of cases that involve government tracking of a suspect's cell phone -- but the court's Chief Justice disagrees with the ruling -- calling it a violation of privacy. The decision could impact everyone who carries a mobile phone.
If you have a cell phone, you are literally carrying a real-time tracking device everywhere you go. But should police be able to use that information to track down suspected criminals?
The Wisconsin Supreme Court now says they can -- and they may not even need a search warrant.
Your cell phone knows a lot about you, and your cell phone provider is storing that information. The question is, how and when can the government use that otherwise private data to find you?
"And that`s really what`s at issue here is tracking somebody in real-time, wherever they are," Attorney Casey Hoff said.
One of the two cases testing that question before the Wisconsin Supreme Court involves a 2009 Milwaukee homicide that occurred near 16th and Locust.
Just minutes before the shooting, Bobby Lee Tate was seen buying a pre-paid cell phone at a nearby corner store.
After Tate left the scene, police tracked him down at his mother's apartment in northwest Milwaukee, and they did it by following the signal from his cell phone.
So did police violate Tate's right to privacy?
On Thursday, July 24th, the state Supreme Court said no.
The majority opinion concludes that the search for Tate was "reasonable" -- whether or not police had a valid search warrant.
Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson wrote a forceful dissent, arguing that Tate's privacy was indeed violated.
"People do not buy cell phones to have them serve as a government tracking device," Justice Abrahamson wrote.
During oral arguments last fall, Justice Abrahamson expressed concern about what this means for the rest of us.
"It smells of government is watching all the time. The Fourth Amendment is not designed to protect the criminal. It`s designed to protect the rest of us from government intrusion," Justice Abrahamson said.
Earlier this year, the Wisconsin Legislature passed a bill that now requires police to get a search warrant before they can access cell phone location information.
That law was not in place when Tate was tracked and arrested for homicide.
The second homicide case included in Thursday's ruling comes out of Kenosha County. Police used cell phone data to track down the suspect, Nicolas Subdiaz-Osorio in Arkansas.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court has sided with police in two separate cases where cellphone data was used to track suspects.
Subdiaz-Osorio contends the search of his phone was illegal.
But the Supreme Court in each case said police were within their rights.
Related stories: