The National Trial Lawyers
  • Home
    • Meet Our Team
    • Contact Us
    • Mission & Goals
    • FAQ
  • Webinars
  • News
  • Membership Directory
    • Top 100 Map – Civil Plaintiff
    • Top 100 Map – Criminal Defense
    • Top 40 Under 40 Map – Civil Plaintiff
    • Top 40 Under 40 Map – Criminal Defense
  • Top 100
    • Civil Plaintiff Officers / Executive Committee
    • Criminal Defense Officers / Executive Committee
    • Benefits
    • About
    • Top 100 President’s Message
    • Diplomat
    • Membership Renewal
    • Member Profile Updates
    • Top 100 Badge
    • Media
  • Top 40
    • Civil Plaintiff Officers / Executive Committee
    • Criminal Defense Officers / Executive Committee
    • Top 40 Under 40 Trial Academy Bootcamp
    • Benefits
    • About
    • Top 40 President’s Message
    • Membership Renewal
    • Member Profile Updates
    • Top 40 Badge
    • Media
  • Specialty Assoc
    • About
    • Shop
    • Officers
    • Membership Renewal
    • Member Profile Updates
    • Media
  • Nominate
    • Top 100
    • Top 40
    • Specialty Association
    • Trial Lawyer Hall of Fame
    • Trial Lawyer of the Year
    • Trial Team of the Year
    • America’s Most Influential Trial Lawyer
    • America’s Most Influential Law Firm
    • Lifetime Achievement Award
  • Shop
  • Magazine
    • A-List
  • Education and Networking Agenda
    • Trial Lawyers Summit
      • Summit Sponsors
    • Top 40 Under 40 Trial Academy Boot Camp
    • Mass Torts Made Perfect
    • The Lanier Master Class 5.0 Trial Academy 2021
    • Webinars
  • Hall of Fame
    • Trial Lawyer Hall of Fame

Sender Has No Privacy In Text Messages Used To Convict Him of Homicide

Posted on October 13, 2015 by Larry Bodine

text messageA Wisconsin Court of Appeals upheld a ruling that a man who sent text messages to a man found dead from painkiller overdose, did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in those messages.

Information contained in the text messages was used to convict the man who pled guilty to second-degree reckless homicide.

Pain patch caused overdose

A Delafield, Wisconsin, police officer responded to a call and found the body of Wayne Wilson. He had a fentanyl narcotic painkiller patch in his mouth. The police officer found Wilson’s phone and read text messages between Wilson and Ryan Tentoni discussing Tentoni providing Wilson with fentanyl patches.

Wilson texted Tentoni that some patches were “like duds” to him and he did not feel the effects. Tentoni suggested that Wilson fold and suck on the patch. The police officer testified that the folding method described in the text message from Tentoni matched the position of the patch in Wilson’s mouth.

The Waukesha County Medical Examiner testified that the cause of death was acute fentanyl intoxication.

Phone search leads to warrant

The police officer, relying on the text messages found in Wilson’s phone from Tentoni, obtained a warrant for Tentoni’s phone. The warrant produced 350 messages between Tentoni and Wilson in the month prior to Wilson’s death, and around 4,000 text messages between the two men in total.

Tentoni attempted to have the text messages suppressed, arguing that he had a privacy interest in the messages discovered through a warrantless search of Wilson’s phone.

He also argued the additional text messages produced under the warrant were the fruit of the “government’s illegal search of his text messages stored in Wilson’s phone.”

No reasonable expectation of privacy

The circuit court denied Tentoni’s motion to suppress.  He pled guilty to an amended charge of second-degree reckless homicide, then appealed.

The Appeals court affirmed the circuit court’s finding, writing that Tentoni did not have an “objectively reasonable expectation of privacy” in the text messages because he had no property interest in Wilson’s phone.

Tentoni did not have control over Wilson’s phone and did not have the right to exclude others from the messages on Wilson’s phone.  The court further wrote that Tentoni did not claim he attempted to keep the privacy of his text messages by telling Wilson to keep the messages private.

Factors to determine privacy expectation

The court examined the right against unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment and discussed that they are “personal and may not be asserted vicariously.”  In order for Tentoni to have had a privacy right in the messages, he had to show a “legitimate expectation of privacy” in Wilson’s phone by meeting two criteria:

  • He had an actual, subjective expectation of privacy in the area searched and item seized
  • Society is willing to recognize the defendant’s expectation of privacy as reasonable

 

See also: 11th Circuit Court Rules No Warrant Needed For Police to Get Cell Records

To determine the reasonableness of his expectation, the court considered six factors in the totality of the circumstances, which are:

  1. Whether the person had a property interest in the premises;
  2. Whether the person was legitimately on the premises;
  3. Whether the person had complete dominion and control and the right to exclude others;
  4. Whether the person took precautions customarily taken by those seeking privacy;
  5. Whether the person put the property to some private use; and
  6. Whether the claim of privacy is consistent with historical notions of privacy.

 

Looking to other circuits, the appeals court reiterated that a sender of a communication, including letters, e-mails and texts, “has no privacy interest in the contents” of the communication once it reaches the recipient.

The ruling in the case follows some circuit courts that have ruled that information provided from electronic devices are not protected by privacy rights or the Fourth Amendment.

See also: Circuit Split: Warrant Required for Cell Phone Location Information

No control over sent messages

Focusing on the issue of control, the court found that Tentoni had not control over the messages he sent to Wilson once Wilson received them.

Once it reaches the recipient, the sender has no control over the message, whether it be “saved, destroyed or deleted, shared, or disclosed to others.”

The lack of control exemplifies the absence of a right to exclude others, and no reasonable expectation of privacy in the text messages.

The case is State of Wisconsin v. Tentoni, Appeal No. 2014AP2387-CRll in the Wisconsin Court of Appeals District II.

Posted in Blog, Criminal Law / DUI, Wrongful death

Comments are closed.

News Categories

Subscribe to Blog and VFJ via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog, the Voice for Justice and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Read about other Top Jury Verdicts

Intel Ordered to Pay a $2.2B Settlement in Patent Infringement Case

Intel Ordered to Pay a $2.2B Settlement in Patent Infringement Case

Intel was told to pay $2.18 billion after losing a patent-infringement trial over technology related to chip-making.Intel inf[Read More...]
What is Sexual Harassment?

What is Sexual Harassment?

Sexual Harassment Defined: Legally, sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination that violates Title VII of the [Read More...]
Facebook Pays $650M to Settle a Privacy Dispute

Facebook Pays $650M to Settle a Privacy Dispute

WASHINGTON: A US federal judge has given final approval to Facebook's US$650 million payment to settle a privacy dispute betw[Read More...]
Pharmaceutical Giant Johnson & Johnson is Preparing $3.9B for Talc Settlements

Pharmaceutical Giant Johnson & Johnson is Preparing $3.9B for Talc Settlements

Pharmaceutical giant Johnson & Johnson has set aside $3.9 billion for talc-related litigation, according to a regulatory [Read More...]
Alaska Airlines Will Pay $3.19M Following the Death of a Passenger

Alaska Airlines Will Pay $3.19M Following the Death of a Passenger

Seattle-based Alaska Airlines has been ordered to pay more than $3 million to the family of a passenger of reduced mobility w[Read More...]

#LegalNews

@@TheNTLtop100

Contact Us | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy

Attorney information and content provided on this website is provided for the benefit of members of The National Trial Lawyers and as a public service by Legal Associations Management, Inc. The website and all data are the property of Legal Associations Management, Inc. Data, including without limitation attorney information and content, on the site may not be mined, sold, or used commercially for any purpose without the explicit written consent of Legal Associations Management, Inc. This site may not be accessed by any automated program for extracting data for any use. By accessing and using the site you agree that you will not develop, support or use software, devices, scripts, robots, or any other means or processes (including crawlers, browser plug-ins and add-ons, or any other technology) to scrape data or otherwise copy profiles and other data. Unauthorized use or attempted unauthorized use of this system may subject you to both civil and criminal penalties.