Follow Us

Facebooktwitterrss
≡ Menu

K. Electronic surveillance

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

{ 0 comments }

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

{ 0 comments }

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

{ 0 comments }

State v. Brian Harold Duchow,  2008 WI 57, reversing unpublished decision For Duchow: Melinda A. Swartz, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate Issue: Whether tape-recorded statements were “oral communication” as defined in Wis.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

{ 0 comments }

State v. Brian Harold Duchow, 2008 WI 57, reversing unpublished decision For Duchow: Melinda A. Swartz, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶15 Extrinsic sources include legislative history.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

{ 0 comments }

State v. Brian Harold Duchow, 2008 WI 57, reversing unpublished decision For Duchow: Melinda A. Swartz, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate Issue: Whether a school bus driver’s statements surreptitiously recorded by a voice-activated tape recorder in the student’s backpack were suppressible under WESCL. Holding: ¶2  The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether Duchow’s tape-recorded statements were “oral communication” as… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Jeffrey Allen House, 2007 WI 78, affirming unpublished opinion For House: Michael J. Steinle Issue/Holding1:¶ ¶12      House contends that because money laundering, racketeering, and continuing criminal enterprise are not specifically enumerated crimes for which wiretaps are authorized under the Wisconsin wiretap statutes, the order authorizing the wiretap in this case was unlawful. We begin our… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Troy Curtis Christensen, 2005 WI App 203 For Christensen: Jefren E. Olsen, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: Given proper notice that calls are subject to recording or monitoring, WESCL allows intercepts of outgoing jail calls notwithstanding the potential for capturing attorney-client calls. (State v. Deonte D. Riley, 2005 WI App 203, ¶13 n. 5, which… Read More

{ 0 comments }