Placing a GPS device defense attorneys

Firstly, let’s address an important point: the law does not simply include dedicated GPS devices.  Instead, a “device equipped with global positioning technology” is required.  Leaving a cellphone in someone’s car with the intent to track the vehicle (without the owner’s consent) satisfies the law.  In other words, any device that has GPS functionality qualifies under the statute.

But those other devices must use “global positioning technology.”  What is it?  The official jury instructions (which we’ll discuss in the next section) direct us to sections 301.48(1)(b) and 301.49(1)(b) of the Wisconsin Statutes.  Although these statutes have to do with restraining orders and individuals convicted of certain sexual assault charges, they provide us the definition of global position system tracking:

301.48 Global positioning system tracking …

(1) Definitions. In this section:

…

(b) “Global positioning system tracking” means tracking using a system that actively monitors and identifies a person’s location and timely reports or records the person’s presence near or at a crime scene or in an exclusion zone or the person’s departure from an inclusion zone. “Global positioning system tracking” includes comparable technology.

Wisconsin Criminal Jury Instruction 1283A – Placing a global positioning device

Jury instructions are important in the criminal justice system.  They’re official instructions that describe what the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt in order to sustain a conviction against a defendant.  The instructions provide us “elements” of the offense, which are simply small parts of an offense.  It’s these parts that the government must prove in order to convict the defendant.

Wisconsin Criminal Jury Instruction 1283A provides us the following instructions:

• Firstly, the defendant placed a GPS device (or an item equipped with GPS technology) on a vehicle owned or leased by another person.
• Secondly, the defendant placed the device without the owner’s consent.

But what are we missing here?  Surely the defendant has to actually watch the device and use it to locate the alleged victim, right?  Wrong.  Simply placing the device in another’s vehicle, when not done with their consent, is a Class A misdemeanor in Wisconsin.

What are some examples of conduct that doesn’t satisfy the jury instructions (or the statute)?  Case law clarifies this for us: Installation of a device by a manufacturer, by a law enforcement officer acting in his official capacity, and parents tracking the location or movement of a minor child are three examples of conduct that does not satisfy this statute.  State v. Harrison, 260 Wis. 89,92 250 N.W.2d 38 (1951).