Surveillance Wisconsin silent about cell phone tracking by state police

Published 12 May 2014

The Wisconsin Department of Justice(DOJ) is refusing to acknowledge that it has deployed Stingray technology to track Wisconsin residents’ cellphones, despite reports claiming the state has used the technology during previous investigations. The state also denied a public records request made in April seeking details on how often Stingray technology is used, how data is stored and shared, and how often warrants are obtained.

The Wisconsin Department of Justice (DOJ) is refusing to acknowledge that it has deployed Stingray technology to track Wisconsin residents’ cellphones, despite a report by the Gannett Wisconsin Investigative Team claiming the state has used the technology during previous investigations. The state also denied a public records request made in April seeking details on how often Stingray technology is used, how data is stored and shared, and how often warrants are obtained. Assistant Attorney General Kevin Potter wrote that such information “could undermine law enforcement’s ability to use investigative techniques … to effectively investigate criminal activity.”

Stingray technology allows law enforcement agencies to track, in real time, locations of cellphones by masquerading as a cell tower to trick cellphones within a mile into connecting to it. Typically used to track suspects or missing persons, the technology also gathers data on other cellphones nearby. Documents obtained by Gannett Wisconsin Media (GWM) show that Wisconsin DOJ has used Stingray technology in Wisconsin since 2006, and has loaned it to other agencies around the state. Documents show that Milwaukee police also have a Stingray.

According to GWM, privacy advocates are worried that the data gathered by a Stingray may be used against innocent residents. Wisconsin DOJ refuses to say how long the data is kept or who has access to it. Unredacted sections of the DOJ policy and procedure document for electronic surveillance practices provided to GWM reveal that data retention policies vary based on the devices used, but those surveillance policies do not cover devices like a Stingray, which can collect information on residents not involved in a specific investigation.

Nathan Wessler, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union notes that a Stingray could be used to identify attendees at a large public event. “Here all the sudden you have a log of every phone in a particular area over some indefinite period of time,” Wessler said. “You need much more tailored retention policies for that kind of circumstance.”

While Wisconsin DOJ remains secretive about its Stingray policies and practices, other agencies have been open. A USA Today/Gannett investigation in December found that at least twenty-five police departments outside Wisconsin have confirmed owning a Stingray. Of the 125 agencies contacted, seventy said they had no such device, and thirty refused to answer. “If (the state DOJ’s) position is that merely acknowledging the existence of a Stingray device in their possession would somehow compromise their ability to do their work, that’s crazy,” Wessler said. “This is no longer secret technology.” Potter said the redacted sections of the DOJ’s policy document offers techniques and practices that if declassified would threaten the effectiveness of future investigations and “put at risk the safety of the public, law enforcement personnel, informants, witnesses and others involved in DCI investigations.”

Police in Tallahassee, Florida recently released a list of 277 cases in which a Stingray has been used since 2007. Wisconsin DOJ, on the other hand, told GWM that it had no records of a Stingray being used in a given investigation. GWM reports that obtaining a warrant has been common practice for a Stingray use in Wisconsin, based on records from a Milwaukee case that is now before the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

Governor Scott Walker signed a law last month requiring warrants to use cellphone tracking devices in most non-emergency situations, but the law places fewer limits on cellphone tracking than the state law puts on traditional search warrants, requiring that the tracking only be expected to result in information “relevant to an ongoing investigation.”