Wisconsin Supreme Court hears oral arguments in cell phone tracking case, State v. Tate

On October 9th, the Wisconsin Supreme Court heard oral arguments in State v. Tate, a case addressing whether the lower court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress evidence from a warrant that allowed police to track the location of the defendant's cell phone.

The defendant frames the issue of the case in his brief (attached below) as follows

Police obtained a court order to track a cell phone because the person in possession of the phone was suspected of a homicide. However, neither the location  data itself, nor the phone’s location, nor the location of the person in possession of the phone constituted evidence of a crime. As one federal district court recently described the scenario, police asked “to use location data in a new way—not to collect evidence of a crime, but solely to locate” a suspect. MD Prospective, infra, 849 F. Supp. 2d 526, 530 (D. Md. 2011).

Issues: Was there statutory authority for the Order? Did the Order violate the State and Federal Constitutions? The lower courts concluded that the Order was permissible.

The State's response (attached below) frames the issue as follows

Issues: Was the judicial order authorizing the police to track a cell phone belonging to defendant-appellant-petitioner Bobby L. Tate a valid search warrant?

Here are links to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals decision, the Defendant's Brief, the State's Response, and the Defendant's Reply.

Additionally, here is a link to the audio of the oral arguments (.WMA)