State Of Wis. v. Sveum
Decision Date | 20 July 2010 |
Docket Number | No. 2008AP658-CR.,2008AP658-CR. |
Citation | 787 N.W.2d 317,2010 WI 92 |
Parties | STATE of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent,v.Michael A. SVEUM, Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner. |
Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
For the defendant-appellant-petitioner there were briefs by Dean A. Strang, Marcus J. Berghahn, and Hurley, Burish & Stanton, S.C., Madison, and oral argument by Dean A. Strang.
For the plaintiff-respondent the cause was argued by Daniel J. O'Brien, assistant attorney general, with whom on the briefs was J.B. Van Hollen, attorney general.
An amicus curiae brief was filed by Amelia L. Bizzaro and Henak Law Office, S.C., Milwaukee; Laurence Jacques Dupuis and the American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin Foundation, Milwaukee; G. Michael Halfenger and Foley & Lardner, LLP, Milwaukee; Catherine Crump and the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, New York, N.Y.; and Jennifer Granick and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, San Francisco, Cal., and oral argument by G. Michael Halfenger.
¶ 1 We review a decision of the court of appeals 1 affirming the circuit court's judgment 2 convicting Michael A. Sveum (Sveum) of aggravated stalking and denying Sveum's post-conviction motion for a new trial. In upholding the judgment of conviction, the court of appeals affirmed the circuit court's denial of Sveum's motion to suppress evidence obtained from a Global Positioning System (GPS) tracking device, which law enforcement attached to Sveum's car. Our focus is on whether the circuit court erred in its denial of Sveum's suppression motion.
¶ 2 Sveum and the State have briefed two issues for purposes of our review: (1) whether the installation of a GPS tracking device to Sveum's car while his car was parked in the driveway of his home and the subsequent electronic monitoring of Sveum's car using the GPS constituted a search or seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 11 of the Wisconsin Constitution; and (2) whether the court order authorizing the installation and monitoring of a GPS tracking device on Sveum's vehicle constituted a valid warrant and, if so, whether the police reasonably executed the warrant.
¶ 3 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. We therefore decide only the second issue, concluding that the order authorizing law enforcement to install and monitor a GPS tracking device on Sveum's vehicle constituted a valid warrant and that the officers' execution of the warrant was reasonable. Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the court of appeals.
¶ 4 In 1996, “Sveum was charged with stalking and harassing Jamie Johnson [ (Johnson) ], his former girlfriend.” State v. Sveum (Sveum I), 220 Wis.2d 396, 399, 584 N.W.2d 137 (Ct.App.1998). “He was also charged with violating a harassment injunction for contacting [Johnson] personally and by telephone” and “criminal damage to property.” Id. Sveum was convicted of all charges, which the court of appeals affirmed. Id. He was sentenced to 11 years of probation for the stalking conviction that commenced upon serving three consecutive, three-year prison terms for the remaining three convictions. Sveum remained in confinement until his mandatory release date of July 2, 2002, when he was released on probation and parole.
¶ 5 In March 2003, Johnson reported to the police that she believed Sveum was stalking her again. On April 22, 2003, Detective Mary Ricksecker (Ricksecker) requested circuit court authorization to install and monitor an electronic device on Sveum's vehicle. Specifically, she requested to attach a GPS tracking device to Sveum's vehicle, a 1980 black Chevy Beretta Coup with a Wisconsin license plate number of 754 ELL and a Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) of 1G1LZ14A2LY130646, and to monitor the tracking device “inside such private and public areas.” She further requested “permission to obtain a key to operate the motor vehicle, if necessary” and “to use the same methods to retrieve the device.” Finally, she requested “that the order be authorized for a period of time not to exceed 60 days from the date the order is signed.”
¶ 6 Ricksecker filed an affidavit in support of this request, alleging that GPS monitoring of Sveum's vehicle “could provide relevant information to the criminal investigation of the crime of stalking.” Ricksecker averred the following:
Your affiant is aware that persons involved in criminal activities or conspiracies...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Subdiaz-Osorio
...Phillips, 218 Wis.2d 180, 189–91, 577 N.W.2d 794 (1998); see State v. Brereton, 2013 WI 17, ¶ 17, 345 Wis.2d 563, 826 N.W.2d 369; State v. Sveum, 2010 WI 92, ¶ 16, 328 Wis.2d 369, 787 N.W.2d 317. Although the court upholds findings of historical fact unless they are clearly erroneous, const......
-
U.S. v. Cuevas–perez
...based on whether it is obtained in real time by a signal or at a later time by direct access to the device.”), aff'd, 328 Wis.2d 369, 787 N.W.2d 317 (2010), cert. denied, ––– U.S. ––––, 131 S.Ct. 803, 178 L.Ed.2d 537 (2010); Foltz v. Commonwealth, 57 Va.App. 68, 698 S.E.2d 281, 289–90 (2010......
-
Johnson v. Masters
...See, e.g., State v. Brereton, 2013 WI 17, ¶ 54 n. 16, 345 Wis.2d 563, 826 N.W.2d 369;id., ¶¶ 98–99 (Abrahamson, C.J., dissenting); State v. Sveum, 2010 WI 92, ¶¶ 79, 84, 328 Wis.2d 369, 787 N.W.2d 317 (Ziegler, J., concurring) (asking legislature to set parameters and standards of use for t......
-
State v. Pinder
...court held a hearing on Pinder's motion to suppress.12 On November 23, 2015, the circuit court denied the motion to suppress, concluding that Sveum 13 is "on point," and that Sveum’s reasoning "controls" in this case. In applying Sveum’s test to determine whether the Warrant was valid, ......