State v. Jeffrey Allen House, 2007 WI 78, affirming unpublished opinion For House: Michael J. Steinle Issue/Holding1:¶ ¶12 House contends that because money laundering, racketeering, and continuing criminal enterprise are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
K. Electronic surveillance
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
State v. Deonte D. Riley, 2005 WI App 203 For Riley: William E. Schmaal Issue/Holding: A recorded message heard by any jail inmate placing an outgoing call, to the effect the call may be recorded, was sufficient to trigger WESCL’s one-party consent exception: ¶10 The WESCL is patterned after Title III of the federal Omnibus Control… Read more
State v. John R. Maloney, 2004 WI App 141, affirmed, 2005 WI 74 Issue/Holding: The WESCL bars interception of a communication where the intent is to commit an “injurious act,” a showing that Maloney can’t make: ¶16. Generally, intent presents a question of fact that we are not allowed to resolve. See, e.g., State v. Lossman, 118 Wis. 2d 526… Read more
State v. Kevin Gilmore, 201 Wis. 2d 820, 549 N.W.2d 401 (1996), affirming, 193 Wis. 2d 403, 535 N.W.2d 21 (Ct. App. 1995) For Gilmore: Robert R. Henak Issue/Holding: We hold that while WESCL does not authorize the State’s unilateral public disclosure of intercepted communications in a criminal complaint, the State may incorporate intercepted communications in… Read more
