On Point blog, page 3 of 3
Wisconsin Electronic Surveillance Control Law (WESCL), §§ 968.27-.37 – Jailhouse Calls – One-Party Consent: Notice to Inmate of Potential for Intercept
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 and Safe Streets Act of 1968. …
¶11 Courts interpreting the federal law have concluded that “[C]onsent may be express or may be implied in fact from ‘surrounding circumstances indicating that the [defendant] knowingly agreed to the surveillance.’” United States v.
WESCL, §§ 968.31(2)(b) and (c) – Intent to Commit Injurious Act
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.
WESCL, §§ 968.27 – .37 — Unilateral Public Disclosure Not Authorized – Complaint Containing Such Disclosure Should Be Sealed
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 a complaint if the State files the complaint under seal with the circuit court.