Wisconsin Allows Cops to Put GPS on Your Car and Track You: Even if You're Not a Suspect, and Without a Warrant

Hopefully, something will be done about this, but don't expect the Wisconsin judicial system to help. The state's appellate court has approved the use of GPS tracking systems by law enforcement, where the cops place GPS trackers on cars -- without a warrant, and without anyone being labeled a suspect.

In Wisconsin, apparently, the cops can track anyone, anytime - just because they want to do so. Yes, you read that right. In Wisconsin, right now, any motor vehicle on the road could have a GPS tracker on it - legally - even if the owner doesn't know it, and even if the owner is not a suspect for any crime.

What about the right to privacy? What about due process prohibitions against illegal search and seizure?

Wisconsin appeals court passes the buck to the State Legislature

The Wisconsin 4th Court of Appeals couldn't help -- they heard the case, and decided it wasn't a violation of the 4th Amendment (which prohibits illegal search and seizure). Their idea was that as long as the car went along in public places, where the cops could follow it, then there wasn't a problem - the GPS wasn't telling the cops anything more than they'd know anyway from physical surveillance.

Except that the car in question did go into private places. And, except that the placement of a devise on someone's personal property without their permission - for the purpose of watching them - is wrong, without due process.

Now, to be fair, the Wisconsin court did voice some concerns here. They wanted us to know that they didn't like what they were doing. But instead of doing something themselves, they suggested that the Wisconsin Legislature do something.

Is this it? Let's hope not.

Of course, there's a lot of brouhaha about this decision. The ACLU is arguing that this violates privacy laws, for one thing. Maybe we haven't heard the last of this. Hopefully, that Wisconsin appellate court decision can be reviewed by the state's high court (I haven't researched the scheme of things in Wisconsin's judicial system to know what court grades the papers of the 4th Court of Appeals in Madison, Wisconsin.) And, there's always federal court, you know....

This law getting this far is troubling.

Meanwhile, this is a valid law on the books. And, I think we should all be worried just because it's made it this far.

It doesn't seem like rocket science to me that it is just plain wrong for a cop to sneak up to a car and put a GPS tracker on it, just because he wants to do so. And to do so without a warrant -- which is in essence, a judge double-checking and approving the cop's desire to invade a person's right to privacy because of a valid legal interest. Plus, to do so without the person being labeled as a suspect of a crime.

What made these cops think this was okay? What made these courts let this scoot on by?

And, here in Texas -- wouldn't we just love this? What with all our gunrunning, human trafficking, and drug distribution problems down here?

Heck, why don't we just sell cars with power steering, anti-lock brakes, and a GPS tracker for the cops built right it? Oh, yeah, we do.

If you have a navigation system, like OnStar or TomTom in your car, you're already trackable now. Same goes for your smartphones. Of course, right now, the cops need a warrant to gain access to that personal information - they've got to have paperwork to tote over to the OnStar folks or the TomTom folks, to gain access to that information. But they can do it, technologically. And, with this Wisconsin precedent, it's really just a small step from needing a warrant to ... well, NOT.

Scary stuff, isn't it?

How Can Jose Baez Be Lead Lawyer in the Casey Anthony Case -- No Death Qualified Attorney Has Been On the Record Since Terry Lenamon Left

Back in January, I was flabbergasted when I learned the limited experience that Jose Baez had -- and here he was, lead counsel in the Casey Anthony case. Back then, I wondered about ineffective assistance of counsel claims (you can read that post here).

Then, today, I learn that Jose Baez is filing a Motion to Transfer Venue - and his spokesperson has told the media that afterwards, he will have a press conference. Of course he is.

Meanwhile, fellow "Dream Team" attorney Linda Kenney Baden has been up in New York City, appearing on the Today Show and telling everyone how the local media has been sooooo biased, but the national media has been so NOT.

Please. Does this woman watch Nancy Grace? I do. Most folk at Nancy Grace aren't discussing the issue of whether or not Casey Anthony killed her daughter, they're talking about how strong the state's case is and whether or not Casey Anthony will get the death penalty - and they're looking carefully at all the new document dumps as they occur. (There was another one last Friday.)

There's No Big Diff in the Media Coverage

My first point: there is no significant distinction to be made between the local media and the national media in how the Casey Anthony case is being portrayed. That's hooey.

And, now, my second point. And it's much bigger.

Terry Lenamon Posted Florida Rule on Death Penalty Qualified Attorneys

I was over at Terry Lenamon's blog (he was the attorney last fall who argued for Casey Anthony and got the death penalty off the table for her) and he's building a big blog all about the death penalty -- both in Florida and across the country. Lots of stuff about capital punishment.

(As a side note, Lenamon's picked up on our illustrious Chief Justice Sharon Keller over here, but that's a different post for a different day. We're all so very proud here in Texas.}

And Terry Lenamon has put the entire Florida rule on what attorneys can represent defendants who are facing the death penalty. Appointed or Retained. And, Florida is pretty darn strict on which attorneys get to take on this job.

And here's the big scoop that I'm shocked no one is discussing....no one on the Casey Anthony Legal Team Meets the Florida Legal Standard

There is absolutely NO ONE on the Casey Anthony legal team, as far as I can tell, that has these qualifications. Lenamon did, but he isn't currently on the "Dream Team."

Neither Jose Baez or Linda Baden meet this statute. Go read it for yourself.

I think this creates a great argument that there is a Due Process violation here.

Think about it. Jose Baez filed a major request with the court today -- a venue challenge. Big deal in any case, MAJOR big deal in this one. Does he have legal authority to act? Looks questionable, given the statute.

Is this ineffective assistance of counsel? Mebbe. Bigger argument, I think: Casey Anthony's due process rights are being violated if she's been represented outside of the Florida qualification statute.

Think of the appeal, assuming she's found guilty.

Lawyer without the necessary - and mandatory - legal prerequisites makes major decisions and files key motions (like the venue request) in a death penalty case.

First argument, it's due process as a matter of law because the Florida statute wasn't met. Second argument, it's due process under the facts of the case because this unqualified attorney made flawed decisions during the course of Casey Anthony's case that have irreparably harmed her.

More on this later. I'm just fuming.

And that was even BEFORE I read all about how it took 8 years for Jose Baez to get a bar license with the State of Florida.

Ye Gads. Why the heck isn't Terry Lenamon -- who is death qualified -- on this Casey Anthony case?

I am not a Florida attorney, nor am I a criminal defense attorney. But I do know a little about the 8th and 14th Amendments to the US Constitution, I can read a statute, and I'm thinking I have a real and valid concern here.

Wish Terry Lenamon could talk about this.

Ted Nugent Playing the National Anthem In Front of the Alamo

Ted Nugent performed the Star Spangled Banner in front of the Alamo for the San Antonio Tea Party today.

It's amazing guitar ... reminded me of when I first heard Peter Frampton, but Ted Nugent's not using any gizmo here. He's just playing.

US Supreme Court's April 1st Dismissal in Philip Morris v Williams Is No Joke

There's been a lot of discussion and commentary on the US Supreme Court's knee jerk dismissal of the Oregon case involving tobacco giant Philip Morris and the huge punitive damage award granted to plaintiff Mayola Williams, which had already been approved by Oregon's high court.

In case you haven't heard, Mayola Williams filed and won a wrongful death suit based upon the untimely demise of her cigarette-smoking husband, Jesse Williams, due to lung cancer. Actual damages totalled around $800,000 and the punitives were assessed at $79.5 million -- at the juncture, what with interest, the widow Williams is looking at receiving over $175,000,000.00.

Of course, the defense bar had its fingers crossed that the US Supreme Court would take this opportunity to cap punitive damages. What they got, on April 1st, was a one sentence opinion from the highest court in the land, that it had "improvidently granted" writ in the case and had now changed its mind. Wo Nellie.

Which leaves the Oregon Supreme Court's decision intact, the Widow Williams ready to receive her final award, and the plaintiff's bar a very happy group of folk today.

Because despite all the defense talk that this case is limited to its four corners, it isn't. And, that argument that what happens in Oregon stays in Oregon won't fly either.

We all already know that other big damage cases in other states are going to use this case as a strong argument that the US Supreme Court has sent the message: in the right case, big punitives are totally acceptable.

And, you know what: I think they're right to do this. Punitive damages serve a purpose, and I think we can all agree in today's climate that money is the only language that some corporations understand.

Read Justice Sharon Keller's Response to the Judicial Commission

Justice Sharon Keller, through her Jackson, Walker lawyer, has filed a response to the claims pending against her at the Texas Commission on Judicial Conduct. You can read it here.

And, you can read some very good arguments regarding Justice Keller's written response (especially her request that the State of Texas pay for her attorneys' fees) here:

Houston attorney Mark Bennett's Defending People

The New York Times' blog The Lede