Today, there are increasing numbers of cases involving identity theft and domestic abuse. Domestic violence and stalking victims often fall prey to a form of identity theft which is often referred to by experts and prosecutors as "identity theft as abuse"- a subset of cyberstalking.
Identity Theft as Abuse is unique from traditional identity theft crimes because instead of the intent/purpose being for "financial gain", domestic abusers utilize these tactics in order to continue to have power and control over their victims.
Domestic violence abusers armed with their victims personal identifying information often apply for credit cards, magazine subscriptions, e-mail accounts, create web sites including my space and facebook accounts and use the victims identifying information to reek havoc upon their lives-often causing damage to the victims credit and reputation both of which are very difficult to restore once they are lost.
Cases involving identity theft as abuse were often ignored by the courts and law enforcement until now; primarily thanks to the hard work of the prosecutors involved in the Peck case of Wisconsin. The Wisconsin court of appeals affirmed the conviction against Peck providing a new hope for victims of cyberstalking and in particular victims of "identity theft as abuse" - the majority of which are domestic violence and stalking victims.
Peck case synopsis:
WI Ct of Appeal - signing ex-wife up for subscriptions, etc. can be I.D.theft
State v. Peck
Docket: 2007AP002732 11-19-08
PER CURIAM. A jury convicted Daniel J. Peck of three counts of identity theft, finding that he engaged in conduct intended "to harm the reputation, property, person, or estate" of his ex-wife, contrary to WIS. STAT. § 943.201(2)(c) (2005-06). Peck argues on appeal, as he did on motions after verdict, that the word "harm" is unconstitutionally vague and that the State failed to prove that he intended to harm his ex-wife's reputation, property, person or estate. The trial court denied his motions, concluding that the jury permissibly gave the word its ordinary meaning, and that the evidence was sufficient. We agree and affirm.
A special thanks to Attorney Rhonda Martinson with the Battered Women's Justice Project for providing the case information.
If you suspect that you may be a victim of identity theft as abuse or cyberstalking or wish to learn more regarding how you can prevent these crimes, contact Alexis A. Moore directly by e-mail Alexis@survivorsinaction.com or your local domestic violence center for more information.
Note:
James Devendorf law student at UC Berkeley is writing a paper on identity theft in the context of domestic abuse.
If you are a victim of identity theft as abuse or cyberstalking by a former intimate partner/domestic abuser please contact James directly by email at devendorf@gmail.com.
Monday, November 23, 2009
Sunday, November 22, 2009
From victim to victor, not an easy task for cyberstalking victims
Christopher Burgess, tech security expert and Survivors In Action advisory board member, most recent blog provides much needed discussion regarding how little forward progress has been made in preventing or protection victims of cyberstalking emphasizing further that not all 50 states have cyberstalking laws on the books, which I know is making it more difficult for victims to find resolve and support.
Often I am asked about Cyberstalking stats, they are not readily available as is the data from other crimes cyberstalking is not a crime in all 50 states and many states tend to lump cyberstalking crimes with identity theft making statistical data almost impossible to obtain until something changes. To learn more about cyberstalking facts and statistics read you need to read this piece on the topic for About.com by Alexis A. Moore
Survivors In Action
"No Victim Left Behind"
Often I am asked about Cyberstalking stats, they are not readily available as is the data from other crimes cyberstalking is not a crime in all 50 states and many states tend to lump cyberstalking crimes with identity theft making statistical data almost impossible to obtain until something changes. To learn more about cyberstalking facts and statistics read you need to read this piece on the topic for About.com by Alexis A. Moore
Survivors In Action
"No Victim Left Behind"
Friday, November 20, 2009
Become a fan of Survivors In Action
Support and help to ensure that "No victim is Left Behind"Survivors In Action on Facebook
Survivors In Action
"No Victim Left Behind"
Visit Survivors In Action on Facebook
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Cyberstalking documentary exposes the realities for victims of high-tech harassment
The world wide web which I frequently refer to as the "21st century wild wild west" has created a safe haven for predators on-line known as cyberstalkers. The fact that perpetrators can cyberstalk vulnerable victims from one country to another knowing that they will not have to face criminal charges is a very troubling if not alarming reality that millions of cyberstalking victims will continue to face now and well in to the future if the U.S. and other nations do not unite and join forces quickly to find ways to safe guard their constituents from this type of cyber attack.
The net knows no boundaries and has no walls. Today the Internet has created a very new and dangerous playing field for cyber criminals and it is high time that the good guys join forces and create a united front to help even out the on-line playing field that predators in the 21st century more and more frequently are calling home.
It is amazing how far advanced the UK is in regards to their awareness of cyberstalking. The documentary attached is a must see regarding the subject. The segment includes real life descriptions of the cyberstalking incidents described by the victims themselves and the problems frequently encountered by law enforcement and prosecutors today involving investigating and prosecuting cyberstalking incidents.
Note that because here in the states cyberstalking has yet to be recognized in all 50states as a crime I hesitate to state cyberstalking reports as more than incidents to ensure that victims here in the U.S. are not given false hope believing that the cyber attacks they are experiencing will be taken seriously. The U.S. has a long ways to go before cyberstalking will be deemed more than an incident, we need our nation's law makers to take notice and heed the actions of our neighbors abroad and realize that ignoring cyberstalking will not make it go away. We need action and at the federal level to ensure that all 50 states stalking laws include cyberstalking and more importantly that the cyberstalking laws are implemented and enforced.
Millions of victims of traditional stalking are more and more frequently reporting cyberstalking incidents here in the states. Our nation's public safety officials, advocates and law makers must take action now to unite with countries like the United Kingdom who are far more advanced in their understanding and awareness programs to ensure that no victim of cyberstalking is left behind. Today there is no excuse for cyberstalking victims pleas for help to fall upon deaf ears in the U.S. or abroad.
A special thank you to cyberstalking survivor turned advocate Graham Brown-Martin and his wife for bravely speaking out and for sharing their painful personal encounters while being cyberstalked.
This is a must see documentary for everyone to understand cyberstalking.
http://www.digitalsafety.com/cyberstalking/
If you are a victim of cyberstalking you are not alone please reach out for help and report the incidents. More cyber crime victims need to speak out so that we can learn how to better serve victims, you can do so anonymously even. In order to develop prevention and training programs and create and implement laws that will actually work to combat cybercrimes we need victims voices to be heard and understood.
SurvivorsInAction.com
"No Victim Left Behind"
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Don't pay for credit repair services they are a scam
The task of credit repair is not just for those who have slipped and paid late or for victims of identity theft to worry about anymore. Credit repair is now a part of the average persons everyday life thanks to the electronic age and lots of typo's and errors created by those inputting our private records information from credit card applications, mortgage applications, student loans and the list goes on.What that person types sitting on the other end of the phone line and in front of the computer screen does matter.
The individuals sitting behind the computer screens in financial call centers across the world are inputting our personal data for banks, colleges, Visa/MasterCard and endless others. I believe these folks take for granted how important their jobs are and do not understand the seriousness of what they are doing.
One missed key stroke or the simple act of transposing a digit or two can create a huge job for all of us who have to repair the damage that ultimately ends up on our credit reports. The careless slip of a finger becomes inaccurate information on our credit bureau or worse it damages our credit score entirely.
The solution seems obvious to me- before a file that is created by a 3rd party is finalized and sent to the credit bureaus how about allowing the consumer to proof read it? Seems like with today's electronic means a simple e-mail with an attached pdf file or similar format could be easily previewed by the consumer for errors prior to the file being created and delivered to the credit bureaus. I know fat chance this will ever happen but I can dare to dream.....
I request my free credit bureau reports from the 3 bureaus at least once per year. Without fail there is always something to fix or inaccurate information to repair so I plan on it! My name is constantly spelled wrong, my address inputted backwards, an account shows up that does not belong to me or a digit of my social security number or date of birth is wrong.
Either way I wish those sitting behind the machines would take a moment to realize that the average consumer does not need this extra work and that we have plenty to do in the course of our daily lives to keep us busy!
I have learned that until there is accountability for these folks actions including the credit bureaus- this will be a life long battle that the average consumer will never win! I am frustrated as it seems like those of us who suffer through repairing the errors each year should be compensated for the time and effort.
Here are the addresses for contacting and requesting your free credit report by mail. I recommend this method as it seems to be reliable and to actually procure results. Lastly, this method provides you with the opportunity to keep track and copies of your requests as you will be surprised how this will come in hand later.
Don't forget to order a report from each bureau there are three, and to include a photocopy of your social security card, utility bill or similar document that has your current address on it and a copy of your photo identification. If you don't send in these materials don't worry the credit bureaus will send you a "canned letter" requesting them so I am hoping by including this info it will save you some time and another postage stamp.
A request for your personal credit profile from each bureau takes 30 days. This is the same "magic number" that is the time frame for requesting deletions/corrections. Once you have your bureaus and you notice mistakes the best thing to do is to write to the credit bureaus requesting deletions and/or changes and expect another 30 day wait. Don't give up either! It may take two or more tries before the deletions and corrections take place. No matter what be persistent and keep sending in the requests! Don't quit!
There are faster methods as loan officers can process the requests using a format called "rapid re-score" and help to correct the errors but most of us are not obtaining loans once per year so the average person will use the "by mail method" as I have discussed to achieve the desired results.
Experian
P O BOX 9701
Allen, TX 75013
Equifax
P O BOX 105518
Atlanta, GA 30348
Trans Union
P O BOX 2000
Chester, PA 19022
A simple letter like this will work...
Your name
Address
Social
Date of Birth
Date
Dear Credit Bureau ___________,
Please provide me with my free copy of my credit report. I have enclosed a copy of my social security card, utility bill and photo identification for verification purposes.
Thank you,
Your name
To request deletions...
Same format as above except now include...
...Please delete/update the information below as it is not correct.
Name to be deleted
Alexix Moor
This is not my name please delete
Address to be deleted
0921 foster street
Delete this is not my address
Account to be deleted
mbna visa ending in 0432
Not my account delete
After a while the process becomes easier but it still irks me that we have to do this! I suggest saving your requests as a template to use again and to help save time.
Be patient and persistent.
If you are a victim of identity theft and in need of assistance or want to learn more about how to protect yourself from identity theft contact Survivors In Action today.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Cyberstalking awareness goes international, Euro Weekly News launches "Women Reclaim the Web Campaign"
Survivors In Action is honored to support the efforts of Euro Weekly News and their 'Women Reclaim the Web' program, to help promote cyberstalking awareness.
Cyberstalking awareness is something that I am personally very passionate about. Being cyberstalked myself for a few years, I endured hell, and learned very quickly that law enforcement was not prepared to help. Because of this, I had two choices:
1) I could sit on the sidelines and be derailed by the cyberstalker; or
2) I could take action and help promote awareness, so that "no victim is left behind" and left to endure the hell alone as I was
Survivors In Action is taking option number 2, and that is something I am very proud of. Thanks to over three thousand volunteers, victims of crime now have a new resource to turn to. Sadly however, Survivors In Action's work is far from over. Cyberstalking awareness is at an all time low in the U.S. Thousands of victims every month who bravely seek help are being ignored, or are denied help altogether. Without resources being allocated to organizations like Survivors In Action, this problem will continue.
There is not enough training regarding the subject of cyberstalking; and tragically, victims of cyberstalking continue to fall through the cracks. Restraining orders don't work to prohibit cyberstalking, and those who report the crime to law enforcement often still find themselves being ignored or given the run around - even today, as we near 2010.
There are very few resources out there for victims. It is inevitable that as the use of technology continues to grow, so will the number of victims who are cyberstalked.
Christopher Burgess, tech security expert, author and SIA advisory board member, explained clearly that "cyberstalking is not a new phenomena". This makes matters even worse, as it is proof that our nation has continued to ignore the problem for years now. The majority of victims suffer harassment, and are ignored by law enforcement and government officials.
Graham Brown-Martin, a cyberstalking victim turned advocate, has done great things in the UK to help expose the harsh realities faced by victims. His cyberstalking documentary is a must see, and includes the intimate details of his family's experience of cyberstalking.
The U.S. must do more to help promote awareness regarding the subject of cyberstalking. Law enforcement, prosecutors, advocates, and the general public, need to be informed of this crime, now more than ever.
As technology evolves, so do cyberstalker's maneuvers. Survivors In Action is proud of their efforts to serve victims of cyberstalking, to ensure that "No Victim is Left Behind". Even though Survivors In Action is taking an active part in the solution, there is still much more work that needs to be done. This is work that SIA is not able to do because of lack of funding and resources.
We need the public's support now more than ever to help send the message loud and clear to public officials across the U.S. We need to let them know that cyberstalking is a real crime that must be addressed with "real" efforts, so that "No Victim is Left Behind".
If you are a victim of cyberstalking, please visit the Survivors In Action site today for more information.
Survivors In Action
"No Victim Left Behind"
Cyberstalking awareness is something that I am personally very passionate about. Being cyberstalked myself for a few years, I endured hell, and learned very quickly that law enforcement was not prepared to help. Because of this, I had two choices:
1) I could sit on the sidelines and be derailed by the cyberstalker; or
2) I could take action and help promote awareness, so that "no victim is left behind" and left to endure the hell alone as I was
Survivors In Action is taking option number 2, and that is something I am very proud of. Thanks to over three thousand volunteers, victims of crime now have a new resource to turn to. Sadly however, Survivors In Action's work is far from over. Cyberstalking awareness is at an all time low in the U.S. Thousands of victims every month who bravely seek help are being ignored, or are denied help altogether. Without resources being allocated to organizations like Survivors In Action, this problem will continue.
There is not enough training regarding the subject of cyberstalking; and tragically, victims of cyberstalking continue to fall through the cracks. Restraining orders don't work to prohibit cyberstalking, and those who report the crime to law enforcement often still find themselves being ignored or given the run around - even today, as we near 2010.
There are very few resources out there for victims. It is inevitable that as the use of technology continues to grow, so will the number of victims who are cyberstalked.
Christopher Burgess, tech security expert, author and SIA advisory board member, explained clearly that "cyberstalking is not a new phenomena". This makes matters even worse, as it is proof that our nation has continued to ignore the problem for years now. The majority of victims suffer harassment, and are ignored by law enforcement and government officials.
Graham Brown-Martin, a cyberstalking victim turned advocate, has done great things in the UK to help expose the harsh realities faced by victims. His cyberstalking documentary is a must see, and includes the intimate details of his family's experience of cyberstalking.
The U.S. must do more to help promote awareness regarding the subject of cyberstalking. Law enforcement, prosecutors, advocates, and the general public, need to be informed of this crime, now more than ever.
As technology evolves, so do cyberstalker's maneuvers. Survivors In Action is proud of their efforts to serve victims of cyberstalking, to ensure that "No Victim is Left Behind". Even though Survivors In Action is taking an active part in the solution, there is still much more work that needs to be done. This is work that SIA is not able to do because of lack of funding and resources.
We need the public's support now more than ever to help send the message loud and clear to public officials across the U.S. We need to let them know that cyberstalking is a real crime that must be addressed with "real" efforts, so that "No Victim is Left Behind".
If you are a victim of cyberstalking, please visit the Survivors In Action site today for more information.
Survivors In Action
"No Victim Left Behind"
Monday, November 16, 2009
NACA attorney network helps victims of credit collection abuse, id theft and credit bureau reporting errors
There is hope for the millions of victims of identity theft and fraud. The National Association of Consumer Advocates is a nationwide organization that specializes in consumer protection. Its resources include more than 1,000 attorneys who specialize in consumer advocacy and litigation.
NACA attorneys have represented hundreds of thousands of consumers victimized by identity theft and fraud, as well as subsequent abusive and predatory business practices.
Victims can find restoring their identities to be a difficult and time-consuming process. For some, it may take years to erase the damage caused by identity theft. It is not uncommon for victims to spend thousands of hours using the telephone and written correspondence to unravel this crime. Sometimes,third-party debt collection agencies and debt collection attorney firms add to the victims' suffering by telephoning all hours of the day and night.
It is important for victims' to know that when the traditional efforts fail to resolve their problems with identity theft or fraud, other resources are available to them, such as attorneys who specialize in consumer protection. They help thousands of victims restore their good names, stop the predatory practices of the debt collection agencies and help victims get their lives back.
Contact from a credit agency is regulated by federal law, but these laws are ignored by the some debt collection agencies and credit card companies, which causes additional harm and stress for the victims.
Identity theft victims frequently encounter civil suits filed against them by debt collection agencies and attorney collection firms for funds that the victims do not owe.
Some victims feel they have no other choice but to pay to re-establish their good names and their credit. Others file bankruptcy.
NACA, Attorney Bryan C. Becker of San Diego, California said his clients commonly are some of the most vulnerable members of society. Seniors and legalized immigrants are often targeted, among others who do not speak English fluently. The stress and mental anguish caused by this criminal epidemic can have lasting negative effects on some victims, he said.
Although there are federal laws, such as the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Fair Credit Reporting Act, some debt collection agencies use tactics that totally disregard the laws until a civil suit is brought against them by a victim's attorney. Far too many Americans are harassed by the debt collection firms until they give in.
Attorney Becker indicated the majority of the identity theft cases he has litigated take a minimum of one year to conclude. However, many cases take much longer to resolve.
The identity theft epidemic is not going to diminish until there are new privacy laws and better safeguards for consumer records.
Here are a couple of the safeguards that many professionals believe should be put in place.
• Every business or entity that furnishes data should be required to send free notification to the consumer when releasing a consumer's private records to any third party. This would provide consumers with a fighting chance to protect themselves if they discover a criminal breach of their privacy.
• The data-furnishing companies and agents should keep on file for 10 years any records that include the consumers' names and information released and accessed by a third party.
Far too often, law enforcement agencies struggle to battle identity theft crimes -- only to find no evidence left.
Many times, when law enforcement agencies issue search warrants and subpoenas for evidentiary purposes,the information required to prosecute these cases is no longer on file or available. Without the evidence, there is no case.
It is important that the public seeks better safeguards and privacy protection in the Legislature. It also is important for consumers to continue to diligently safeguard their private records and information.
If you have been victimized by identity theft, take the following actions as soon as possible.
File a police report immediately
Contact all known creditors
Contact the three national credit bureau agencies and your bank
Keep copies of any records related to the crime
Document any telephone calls and correspondence related to the identity theft or fraud
Early communication of the crime and careful documentation will assist law enforcement and help legal counsel defend potential claims posed by debt collection agencies and debt collection attorney firms.
The individuals and organizations that I list in my blog are resources that I have utilized personally as well as professionally. After 3 frustrating years of hard work and many heartaches I found these resources to be the most helpful. To save my readers valuable time and effort I provide these resources in the hopes that it will save you the valuable heartache and time that I spent sorting through my own situation. I am not paid to provide these resources or compensated in any manner. This is a simple way for me to "give back" and to assist those like me who have been victims of cyberstalking and identity theft.
If you are a victim of id theft or cyber crime please visit
Survivors In Action
"No Victim Left Behind"
NACA attorneys have represented hundreds of thousands of consumers victimized by identity theft and fraud, as well as subsequent abusive and predatory business practices.
Victims can find restoring their identities to be a difficult and time-consuming process. For some, it may take years to erase the damage caused by identity theft. It is not uncommon for victims to spend thousands of hours using the telephone and written correspondence to unravel this crime. Sometimes,third-party debt collection agencies and debt collection attorney firms add to the victims' suffering by telephoning all hours of the day and night.
It is important for victims' to know that when the traditional efforts fail to resolve their problems with identity theft or fraud, other resources are available to them, such as attorneys who specialize in consumer protection. They help thousands of victims restore their good names, stop the predatory practices of the debt collection agencies and help victims get their lives back.
Contact from a credit agency is regulated by federal law, but these laws are ignored by the some debt collection agencies and credit card companies, which causes additional harm and stress for the victims.
Identity theft victims frequently encounter civil suits filed against them by debt collection agencies and attorney collection firms for funds that the victims do not owe.
Some victims feel they have no other choice but to pay to re-establish their good names and their credit. Others file bankruptcy.
NACA, Attorney Bryan C. Becker of San Diego, California said his clients commonly are some of the most vulnerable members of society. Seniors and legalized immigrants are often targeted, among others who do not speak English fluently. The stress and mental anguish caused by this criminal epidemic can have lasting negative effects on some victims, he said.
Although there are federal laws, such as the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Fair Credit Reporting Act, some debt collection agencies use tactics that totally disregard the laws until a civil suit is brought against them by a victim's attorney. Far too many Americans are harassed by the debt collection firms until they give in.
Attorney Becker indicated the majority of the identity theft cases he has litigated take a minimum of one year to conclude. However, many cases take much longer to resolve.
The identity theft epidemic is not going to diminish until there are new privacy laws and better safeguards for consumer records.
Here are a couple of the safeguards that many professionals believe should be put in place.
• Every business or entity that furnishes data should be required to send free notification to the consumer when releasing a consumer's private records to any third party. This would provide consumers with a fighting chance to protect themselves if they discover a criminal breach of their privacy.
• The data-furnishing companies and agents should keep on file for 10 years any records that include the consumers' names and information released and accessed by a third party.
Far too often, law enforcement agencies struggle to battle identity theft crimes -- only to find no evidence left.
Many times, when law enforcement agencies issue search warrants and subpoenas for evidentiary purposes,the information required to prosecute these cases is no longer on file or available. Without the evidence, there is no case.
It is important that the public seeks better safeguards and privacy protection in the Legislature. It also is important for consumers to continue to diligently safeguard their private records and information.
If you have been victimized by identity theft, take the following actions as soon as possible.
File a police report immediately
Contact all known creditors
Contact the three national credit bureau agencies and your bank
Keep copies of any records related to the crime
Document any telephone calls and correspondence related to the identity theft or fraud
Early communication of the crime and careful documentation will assist law enforcement and help legal counsel defend potential claims posed by debt collection agencies and debt collection attorney firms.
The individuals and organizations that I list in my blog are resources that I have utilized personally as well as professionally. After 3 frustrating years of hard work and many heartaches I found these resources to be the most helpful. To save my readers valuable time and effort I provide these resources in the hopes that it will save you the valuable heartache and time that I spent sorting through my own situation. I am not paid to provide these resources or compensated in any manner. This is a simple way for me to "give back" and to assist those like me who have been victims of cyberstalking and identity theft.
If you are a victim of id theft or cyber crime please visit
Survivors In Action
"No Victim Left Behind"
Saturday, November 14, 2009
NY public officials Ken Zebrowski; Thomas Morahan; Ricard Rangel continue to ignore domestic violence victims
Update:
Maria Phelps a domestic violence victim in NY, has continuously emailed and telephoned the offices of NY public officials Ken Zebrowski, Thomas Morahan, Ricard Rangel. Ms. Phelps requests for a face to face meeting have been ignored probably because the politicians feel she is a "nobody" and not important.
Maria Phelps is one victim yes and not a powerful lobbyist, however there are millions of people who love, serve and support domestic violence victims who vote in New York State at election time that do definitely matter.
Actions speak louder than words and as a supporter of Maria Phelps you can bet that I will support Maria in New York and help support candidates for public office who will support victims of domestic violence. One person can make a difference.
The email below was sent today by domestic violence victim Maria Phelps in New York. Also copied were White House advisor Sarah Lynn Rosenthal, myself and other New York state government officials. When will the run around end? When will the millions in domestic violence funding be allocated to organizations that actually serve victims of abuse?
Domestic violence, stalking,cyberstalking along with the family law court disaster will continue until our nation does more than push paper and pass the buck in regards to domestic violence.
The VAWA Act was a good thing, however 15 years has passed since VAWA was enacted and no changes or updates have taken place while domestic violence organizations and programs receive millions in funding every year.
Accountability is needed and passing around "fancy brochures" is not going to change the fact that domestic violence plagues our nation and victims are falling through the crack while executives and the domestic violence organizations continue to be compensated to maintain the "status quo".
Let's hold the domestic violence organizations accountable for their actions!
While in an economic crisis it would only seem logical for accountability measures to be implemented now more than ever, particularly when domestic violence is a matter of life or death.
Thank you Maria Phelps and to the thousands of victims each month that speak out in support of DV Reform.
Congressman Engel/Assemblyman Zebrowski/Senator Morahan/Carolyn Fish/Ms. Cusack/Ms. Cobart:
For those who do not know my situation, I am a survivor of domestic violence in NYS. For over a year, I have tried hard to get help from DV organizations, agencies, and state programs and after many attempts, letters, and phone calls, I have failed. I have been trying to receive compensation from CVB for a very long time now, and still I am struggling with CVB on a daily basis. Many DV victims struggle with compensation from CVB, and in the end, give up because the process is too difficult, and too many documents are needed (many DV victims cannot supply all the requested information for many reasons).
Although I am still dealing with CVB everyday, I also deal with this reality: There is no real help for DV victims. There are many who think there is help available, especially after one reads about all the money being funneled into DV organizations, shelters, and programs, but there is simply no help. When I state that there is no help, I mean that there is a lack of DV court advocates in NY, a lack of DV counselors willing to assist DV victims, almost no pro bono DV divorce lawyers for abuse victims, and laws that don't reflect reality for victims of this crime. After visiting the CVB website in NYS, I was surprised to see all of the programs given grants to aid DV victims this year. Being that I am a victim of brutal domestic violence myself, I thought it would be at least possible to ask my shelter for free counseling for the trauma I have been through. After two weeks of waiting, there is still no answer for me unless I have the money to pay. There are "volunteer" counseling services like VCS in Rockland, but they want victims to pay out of pocket. Other therapists in the area will not work with CVB payment plans. And since CVB is taking so long to compensate me, that can't be an option anyway. Many victims of DV are completely financially ruined after abuse and divorce, and have nothing left. I would think it would be relatively easy to find free volunteer counseling for this crime, but it is impossible.
When I read statements like this "Ten non-profit organizations that assist crime victims in the greater Capital Region, New York City and Western New York are slated to receive nearly $3 million over the next three years to enhance programs and services for children and adults who have been victims of sexual assault, domestic violence or other crimes." I am confused. When I see this “These grants will assist the most vulnerable victims of particularly devastating crimes – sex crimes and domestic violence – by providing access to direct support, such as counseling, help obtaining orders of protection, and accompaniment to court. This assistance is critical in helping victims deal with trauma and begin to rebuild their lives.” I wonder, who are these victims?
I am not one of these victims, and none of the victims I know in NYS, or even across this country, fall into this category.
Today I want to request a meeting with my state representatives. The lack of response and assistance is shocking, shameful, and it's no longer about me anymore. I have to lay my problems aside everyday because I know there is a bigger picture here, and we are all ignoring it together.
I look forward to hearing from you Congressman Engel, Assemblyman Zebrowski, and Senator Morahan.
Thank you.
Maria Phelps
www.4survivors.blogspot.com
Survivors In Action
"No Victim Left Behind"
Maria Phelps a domestic violence victim in NY, has continuously emailed and telephoned the offices of NY public officials Ken Zebrowski, Thomas Morahan, Ricard Rangel. Ms. Phelps requests for a face to face meeting have been ignored probably because the politicians feel she is a "nobody" and not important.
Maria Phelps is one victim yes and not a powerful lobbyist, however there are millions of people who love, serve and support domestic violence victims who vote in New York State at election time that do definitely matter.
Actions speak louder than words and as a supporter of Maria Phelps you can bet that I will support Maria in New York and help support candidates for public office who will support victims of domestic violence. One person can make a difference.
The email below was sent today by domestic violence victim Maria Phelps in New York. Also copied were White House advisor Sarah Lynn Rosenthal, myself and other New York state government officials. When will the run around end? When will the millions in domestic violence funding be allocated to organizations that actually serve victims of abuse?
Domestic violence, stalking,cyberstalking along with the family law court disaster will continue until our nation does more than push paper and pass the buck in regards to domestic violence.
The VAWA Act was a good thing, however 15 years has passed since VAWA was enacted and no changes or updates have taken place while domestic violence organizations and programs receive millions in funding every year.
Accountability is needed and passing around "fancy brochures" is not going to change the fact that domestic violence plagues our nation and victims are falling through the crack while executives and the domestic violence organizations continue to be compensated to maintain the "status quo".
Let's hold the domestic violence organizations accountable for their actions!
While in an economic crisis it would only seem logical for accountability measures to be implemented now more than ever, particularly when domestic violence is a matter of life or death.
Thank you Maria Phelps and to the thousands of victims each month that speak out in support of DV Reform.
Congressman Engel/Assemblyman Zebrowski/Senator Morahan/Carolyn Fish/Ms. Cusack/Ms. Cobart:
For those who do not know my situation, I am a survivor of domestic violence in NYS. For over a year, I have tried hard to get help from DV organizations, agencies, and state programs and after many attempts, letters, and phone calls, I have failed. I have been trying to receive compensation from CVB for a very long time now, and still I am struggling with CVB on a daily basis. Many DV victims struggle with compensation from CVB, and in the end, give up because the process is too difficult, and too many documents are needed (many DV victims cannot supply all the requested information for many reasons).
Although I am still dealing with CVB everyday, I also deal with this reality: There is no real help for DV victims. There are many who think there is help available, especially after one reads about all the money being funneled into DV organizations, shelters, and programs, but there is simply no help. When I state that there is no help, I mean that there is a lack of DV court advocates in NY, a lack of DV counselors willing to assist DV victims, almost no pro bono DV divorce lawyers for abuse victims, and laws that don't reflect reality for victims of this crime. After visiting the CVB website in NYS, I was surprised to see all of the programs given grants to aid DV victims this year. Being that I am a victim of brutal domestic violence myself, I thought it would be at least possible to ask my shelter for free counseling for the trauma I have been through. After two weeks of waiting, there is still no answer for me unless I have the money to pay. There are "volunteer" counseling services like VCS in Rockland, but they want victims to pay out of pocket. Other therapists in the area will not work with CVB payment plans. And since CVB is taking so long to compensate me, that can't be an option anyway. Many victims of DV are completely financially ruined after abuse and divorce, and have nothing left. I would think it would be relatively easy to find free volunteer counseling for this crime, but it is impossible.
When I read statements like this "Ten non-profit organizations that assist crime victims in the greater Capital Region, New York City and Western New York are slated to receive nearly $3 million over the next three years to enhance programs and services for children and adults who have been victims of sexual assault, domestic violence or other crimes." I am confused. When I see this “These grants will assist the most vulnerable victims of particularly devastating crimes – sex crimes and domestic violence – by providing access to direct support, such as counseling, help obtaining orders of protection, and accompaniment to court. This assistance is critical in helping victims deal with trauma and begin to rebuild their lives.” I wonder, who are these victims?
I am not one of these victims, and none of the victims I know in NYS, or even across this country, fall into this category.
Today I want to request a meeting with my state representatives. The lack of response and assistance is shocking, shameful, and it's no longer about me anymore. I have to lay my problems aside everyday because I know there is a bigger picture here, and we are all ignoring it together.
I look forward to hearing from you Congressman Engel, Assemblyman Zebrowski, and Senator Morahan.
Thank you.
Maria Phelps
www.4survivors.blogspot.com
Survivors In Action
"No Victim Left Behind"
Friday, November 13, 2009
Privacy protection for crime victims and consumers continues to be a challenge
Over the years there has been a steady rise in the number of inquiries I receive regarding privacy protection and in particular how to protect against cyberstalking.
The victims are scared, confused, frustrated and in desperate need of assistance and support that has not changed over the years.
The net continues to be new frontier explored frequently by perpetrators who continue to out pace law enforcement and legislative efforts.
It it is very difficult for consumers to protect their privacy with the number of consumer private records available on-line today. Datafurnishing companies make it very difficult for consumers to protect their private records.
It is true technology has improved and enhanced lives that is for sure however, the real question I am constantly pondering is for what price?
For some victims of stalking incidents last for years and even a decade because of the use of technology. For others changing their name, social security number and moving from one state to another is the only way to find resolve.
It is up to all of us who work in public safety and in particular with victims of stalking to rise above the "status quo" and to adjust to the maneuvers of the perpetrators who are utilizing tech.This requires time, patience and lots of additional hours that the job doesn't pay for; however, in order to excel and try to at least stay one step behind the perpetrators this is what has to be done.
Survivors In Action is accepting sign-ups for no-cost training programs for victim advocates, prosecutors and those who work in public safety regarding the use of technology by perpetrators. Please visit Survivors In Action for more information.
Survivors In Action
"No Victim Left Behind"
The victims are scared, confused, frustrated and in desperate need of assistance and support that has not changed over the years.
The net continues to be new frontier explored frequently by perpetrators who continue to out pace law enforcement and legislative efforts.
It it is very difficult for consumers to protect their privacy with the number of consumer private records available on-line today. Datafurnishing companies make it very difficult for consumers to protect their private records.
It is true technology has improved and enhanced lives that is for sure however, the real question I am constantly pondering is for what price?
For some victims of stalking incidents last for years and even a decade because of the use of technology. For others changing their name, social security number and moving from one state to another is the only way to find resolve.
It is up to all of us who work in public safety and in particular with victims of stalking to rise above the "status quo" and to adjust to the maneuvers of the perpetrators who are utilizing tech.This requires time, patience and lots of additional hours that the job doesn't pay for; however, in order to excel and try to at least stay one step behind the perpetrators this is what has to be done.
Survivors In Action is accepting sign-ups for no-cost training programs for victim advocates, prosecutors and those who work in public safety regarding the use of technology by perpetrators. Please visit Survivors In Action for more information.
Survivors In Action
"No Victim Left Behind"
Thursday, November 12, 2009
New York public officials called out by domestic violence victim who is tired of the run around
The email below was sent today by domestic violence victim Maria Phelps in New York. Also copied were White House advisor Sarah Lynn Rosenthal, myself and other New York state government officials. When will the run around end? When will the millions in domestic violence funding be allocated to organizations that actually serve victims of abuse?
Domestic violence, stalking,cyberstalking along with the family law court disaster will continue until our nation does more than push paper and pass the buck in regards to domestic violence.
The VAWA Act was a good thing, however 15 years has passed since VAWA was enacted and no changes or updates have taken place while domestic violence organizations and programs receive millions in funding every year.
Accountability is needed and passing around "fancy brochures" is not going to change the fact that domestic violence plagues our nation and victims are falling through the crack while executives and the domestic violence organizations continue to be compensated to maintain the "status quo".
Let's hold the domestic violence organizations accountable for their actions!
While in an economic crisis it would only seem logical for accountability measures to be implemented now more than ever, particularly when domestic violence is a matter of life or death.
Thank you Maria Phelps and to the thousands of victims each month that speak out in support of DV Reform.
Congressman Engel/Assemblyman Zebrowski/Senator Morahan/Carolyn Fish/Ms. Cusack/Ms. Cobart:
For those who do not know my situation, I am a survivor of domestic violence in NYS. For over a year, I have tried hard to get help from DV organizations, agencies, and state programs and after many attempts, letters, and phone calls, I have failed. I have been trying to receive compensation from CVB for a very long time now, and still I am struggling with CVB on a daily basis. Many DV victims struggle with compensation from CVB, and in the end, give up because the process is too difficult, and too many documents are needed (many DV victims cannot supply all the requested information for many reasons).
Although I am still dealing with CVB everyday, I also deal with this reality: There is no real help for DV victims. There are many who think there is help available, especially after one reads about all the money being funneled into DV organizations, shelters, and programs, but there is simply no help. When I state that there is no help, I mean that there is a lack of DV court advocates in NY, a lack of DV counselors willing to assist DV victims, almost no pro bono DV divorce lawyers for abuse victims, and laws that don't reflect reality for victims of this crime. After visiting the CVB website in NYS, I was surprised to see all of the programs given grants to aid DV victims this year. Being that I am a victim of brutal domestic violence myself, I thought it would be at least possible to ask my shelter for free counseling for the trauma I have been through. After two weeks of waiting, there is still no answer for me unless I have the money to pay. There are "volunteer" counseling services like VCS in Rockland, but they want victims to pay out of pocket. Other therapists in the area will not work with CVB payment plans. And since CVB is taking so long to compensate me, that can't be an option anyway. Many victims of DV are completely financially ruined after abuse and divorce, and have nothing left. I would think it would be relatively easy to find free volunteer counseling for this crime, but it is impossible.
When I read statements like this "Ten non-profit organizations that assist crime victims in the greater Capital Region, New York City and Western New York are slated to receive nearly $3 million over the next three years to enhance programs and services for children and adults who have been victims of sexual assault, domestic violence or other crimes." I am confused. When I see this “These grants will assist the most vulnerable victims of particularly devastating crimes – sex crimes and domestic violence – by providing access to direct support, such as counseling, help obtaining orders of protection, and accompaniment to court. This assistance is critical in helping victims deal with trauma and begin to rebuild their lives.” I wonder, who are these victims?
I am not one of these victims, and none of the victims I know in NYS, or even across this country, fall into this category.
Today I want to request a meeting with my state representatives. The lack of response and assistance is shocking, shameful, and it's no longer about me anymore. I have to lay my problems aside everyday because I know there is a bigger picture here, and we are all ignoring it together.
I look forward to hearing from you Congressman Engel, Assemblyman Zebrowski, and Senator Morahan.
Thank you.
Maria Phelps
www.4survivors.blogspot.com
Survivors In Action
"No Victim Left Behind"
Domestic violence, stalking,cyberstalking along with the family law court disaster will continue until our nation does more than push paper and pass the buck in regards to domestic violence.
The VAWA Act was a good thing, however 15 years has passed since VAWA was enacted and no changes or updates have taken place while domestic violence organizations and programs receive millions in funding every year.
Accountability is needed and passing around "fancy brochures" is not going to change the fact that domestic violence plagues our nation and victims are falling through the crack while executives and the domestic violence organizations continue to be compensated to maintain the "status quo".
Let's hold the domestic violence organizations accountable for their actions!
While in an economic crisis it would only seem logical for accountability measures to be implemented now more than ever, particularly when domestic violence is a matter of life or death.
Thank you Maria Phelps and to the thousands of victims each month that speak out in support of DV Reform.
Congressman Engel/Assemblyman Zebrowski/Senator Morahan/Carolyn Fish/Ms. Cusack/Ms. Cobart:
For those who do not know my situation, I am a survivor of domestic violence in NYS. For over a year, I have tried hard to get help from DV organizations, agencies, and state programs and after many attempts, letters, and phone calls, I have failed. I have been trying to receive compensation from CVB for a very long time now, and still I am struggling with CVB on a daily basis. Many DV victims struggle with compensation from CVB, and in the end, give up because the process is too difficult, and too many documents are needed (many DV victims cannot supply all the requested information for many reasons).
Although I am still dealing with CVB everyday, I also deal with this reality: There is no real help for DV victims. There are many who think there is help available, especially after one reads about all the money being funneled into DV organizations, shelters, and programs, but there is simply no help. When I state that there is no help, I mean that there is a lack of DV court advocates in NY, a lack of DV counselors willing to assist DV victims, almost no pro bono DV divorce lawyers for abuse victims, and laws that don't reflect reality for victims of this crime. After visiting the CVB website in NYS, I was surprised to see all of the programs given grants to aid DV victims this year. Being that I am a victim of brutal domestic violence myself, I thought it would be at least possible to ask my shelter for free counseling for the trauma I have been through. After two weeks of waiting, there is still no answer for me unless I have the money to pay. There are "volunteer" counseling services like VCS in Rockland, but they want victims to pay out of pocket. Other therapists in the area will not work with CVB payment plans. And since CVB is taking so long to compensate me, that can't be an option anyway. Many victims of DV are completely financially ruined after abuse and divorce, and have nothing left. I would think it would be relatively easy to find free volunteer counseling for this crime, but it is impossible.
When I read statements like this "Ten non-profit organizations that assist crime victims in the greater Capital Region, New York City and Western New York are slated to receive nearly $3 million over the next three years to enhance programs and services for children and adults who have been victims of sexual assault, domestic violence or other crimes." I am confused. When I see this “These grants will assist the most vulnerable victims of particularly devastating crimes – sex crimes and domestic violence – by providing access to direct support, such as counseling, help obtaining orders of protection, and accompaniment to court. This assistance is critical in helping victims deal with trauma and begin to rebuild their lives.” I wonder, who are these victims?
I am not one of these victims, and none of the victims I know in NYS, or even across this country, fall into this category.
Today I want to request a meeting with my state representatives. The lack of response and assistance is shocking, shameful, and it's no longer about me anymore. I have to lay my problems aside everyday because I know there is a bigger picture here, and we are all ignoring it together.
I look forward to hearing from you Congressman Engel, Assemblyman Zebrowski, and Senator Morahan.
Thank you.
Maria Phelps
www.4survivors.blogspot.com
Survivors In Action
"No Victim Left Behind"
Share your cyberstalking stories to help promote awareness, Women Reclaim the Web campaign launched by Euro Weekly News
Survivors In Action is honored to support the efforts of Euro Weekly News and their 'Women Reclaim the Web' program, to help promote cyberstalking awareness.
Cyberstalking awareness is something that I am personally very passionate about. Being cyberstalked myself for a few years, I endured hell, and learned very quickly that law enforcement was not prepared to help. Because of this, I had two choices:
1) I could sit on the sidelines and be derailed by the cyberstalker; or
2) I could take action and help promote awareness, so that "no victim is left behind" and left to endure the hell alone as I was
Survivors In Action is taking option number 2, and that is something I am very proud of. Thanks to over three thousand volunteers, victims of crime now have a new resource to turn to. Sadly however, Survivors In Action's work is far from over. Cyberstalking awareness is at an all time low in the U.S. Thousands of victims every month who bravely seek help are being ignored, or are denied help altogether. Without resources being allocated to organizations like Survivors In Action, this problem will continue.
There is not enough training regarding the subject of cyberstalking; and tragically, victims of cyberstalking continue to fall through the cracks. Restraining orders don't work to prohibit cyberstalking, and those who report the crime to law enforcement often still find themselves being ignored or given the run around - even today, as we near 2010.
There are very few resources out there for victims. It is inevitable that as the use of technology continues to grow, so will the number of victims who are cyberstalked.
Christopher Burgess, tech security expert, author and SIA advisory board member, explained clearly that "cyberstalking is not a new phenomena". This makes matters even worse, as it is proof that our nation has continued to ignore the problem for years now. The majority of victims suffer harassment, and are ignored by law enforcement and government officials.
Graham Brown-Martin, a cyberstalking victim turned advocate, has done great things in the UK to help expose the harsh realities faced by victims. His cyberstalking documentary is a must see, and includes the intimate details of his family's experience of cyberstalking.
The U.S. must do more to help promote awareness regarding the subject of cyberstalking. Law enforcement, prosecutors, advocates, and the general public, need to be informed of this crime, now more than ever.
As technology evolves, so do cyberstalker's maneuvers. Survivors In Action is proud of their efforts to serve victims of cyberstalking, to ensure that "No Victim is Left Behind". Even though Survivors In Action is taking an active part in the solution, there is still much more work that needs to be done. This is work that SIA is not able to do because of lack of funding and resources.
We need the public's support now more than ever to help send the message loud and clear to public officials across the U.S. We need to let them know that cyberstalking is a real crime that must be addressed with "real" efforts, so that "No Victim is Left Behind".
If you are a victim of cyberstalking, please visit the Survivors In Action site today for more information.
Survivors In Action
"No Victim Left Behind"
Cyberstalking awareness is something that I am personally very passionate about. Being cyberstalked myself for a few years, I endured hell, and learned very quickly that law enforcement was not prepared to help. Because of this, I had two choices:
1) I could sit on the sidelines and be derailed by the cyberstalker; or
2) I could take action and help promote awareness, so that "no victim is left behind" and left to endure the hell alone as I was
Survivors In Action is taking option number 2, and that is something I am very proud of. Thanks to over three thousand volunteers, victims of crime now have a new resource to turn to. Sadly however, Survivors In Action's work is far from over. Cyberstalking awareness is at an all time low in the U.S. Thousands of victims every month who bravely seek help are being ignored, or are denied help altogether. Without resources being allocated to organizations like Survivors In Action, this problem will continue.
There is not enough training regarding the subject of cyberstalking; and tragically, victims of cyberstalking continue to fall through the cracks. Restraining orders don't work to prohibit cyberstalking, and those who report the crime to law enforcement often still find themselves being ignored or given the run around - even today, as we near 2010.
There are very few resources out there for victims. It is inevitable that as the use of technology continues to grow, so will the number of victims who are cyberstalked.
Christopher Burgess, tech security expert, author and SIA advisory board member, explained clearly that "cyberstalking is not a new phenomena". This makes matters even worse, as it is proof that our nation has continued to ignore the problem for years now. The majority of victims suffer harassment, and are ignored by law enforcement and government officials.
Graham Brown-Martin, a cyberstalking victim turned advocate, has done great things in the UK to help expose the harsh realities faced by victims. His cyberstalking documentary is a must see, and includes the intimate details of his family's experience of cyberstalking.
The U.S. must do more to help promote awareness regarding the subject of cyberstalking. Law enforcement, prosecutors, advocates, and the general public, need to be informed of this crime, now more than ever.
As technology evolves, so do cyberstalker's maneuvers. Survivors In Action is proud of their efforts to serve victims of cyberstalking, to ensure that "No Victim is Left Behind". Even though Survivors In Action is taking an active part in the solution, there is still much more work that needs to be done. This is work that SIA is not able to do because of lack of funding and resources.
We need the public's support now more than ever to help send the message loud and clear to public officials across the U.S. We need to let them know that cyberstalking is a real crime that must be addressed with "real" efforts, so that "No Victim is Left Behind".
If you are a victim of cyberstalking, please visit the Survivors In Action site today for more information.
Survivors In Action
"No Victim Left Behind"
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Thanks to Toni Collinson Survivors In Action volunteer from New Zealand working hard to help ensure "No Victim is Left Behind"
As part of our way of giving thanks and paying tribute to those who volunteer their time and talents with Survivors In Action I will be posting frequently stories of "One Person Making a Difference" paying tribute to those who give tirelessly to Survivors In Action so that "No Victim is Left Behind".
One person can make a difference, and Toni Collinson Survivors In Action volunteer from New Zealand is doing just that. Toni has contributed to Survivors In Action in amazing ways that prove that together we can make a difference and help ensure "no victim is left behind". She has written and edited many pieces for SIA including one that has been submitted to the National Crime Victim Bar regarding attorney misconduct and victim advocacy that will be distributed nationally.
Although I have never met Toni in person we have developed a wonderful relationship and I urge all of you to visit her web site and to become familiar with her and pay tribute to our friends in New Zealand who are making it possible for Survivors In Action to truly impact the globe.
Thanks to SIA volunteers like Toni, Survivors In Action is becoming a household name known throughout the world as the leader in crime victim advocacy.
Survivors In Action
"No Victim Left Behind"
One person can make a difference, and Toni Collinson Survivors In Action volunteer from New Zealand is doing just that. Toni has contributed to Survivors In Action in amazing ways that prove that together we can make a difference and help ensure "no victim is left behind". She has written and edited many pieces for SIA including one that has been submitted to the National Crime Victim Bar regarding attorney misconduct and victim advocacy that will be distributed nationally.
Although I have never met Toni in person we have developed a wonderful relationship and I urge all of you to visit her web site and to become familiar with her and pay tribute to our friends in New Zealand who are making it possible for Survivors In Action to truly impact the globe.
Thanks to SIA volunteers like Toni, Survivors In Action is becoming a household name known throughout the world as the leader in crime victim advocacy.
Survivors In Action
"No Victim Left Behind"
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Euro Weekly News launches Women Reclaim the Web campaign to help promote awareness of cyberstalking
Survivors In Action is honored to support the efforts of Euro Weekly News and their 'Women Reclaim the Web' program, to help promote cyberstalking awareness.
Cyberstalking awareness is something that I am personally very passionate about. Being cyberstalked myself for a few years, I endured hell, and learned very quickly that law enforcement was not prepared to help. Because of this, I had two choices:
1) I could sit on the sidelines and be derailed by the cyberstalker; or
2) I could take action and help promote awareness, so that "no victim is left behind" and left to endure the hell alone as I was
Survivors In Action is taking option number 2, and that is something I am very proud of. Thanks to over three thousand volunteers, victims of crime now have a new resource to turn to. Sadly however, Survivors In Action's work is far from over. Cyberstalking awareness is at an all time low in the U.S. Thousands of victims every month who bravely seek help are being ignored, or are denied help altogether. Without resources being allocated to organizations like Survivors In Action, this problem will continue.
There is not enough training regarding the subject of cyberstalking; and tragically, victims of cyberstalking continue to fall through the cracks. Restraining orders don't work to prohibit cyberstalking, and those who report the crime to law enforcement often still find themselves being ignored or given the run around - even today, as we near 2010.
There are very few resources out there for victims. It is inevitable that as the use of technology continues to grow, so will the number of victims who are cyberstalked.
Christopher Burgess, tech security expert, author and SIA advisory board member, explained clearly that "cyberstalking is not a new phenomena". This makes matters even worse, as it is proof that our nation has continued to ignore the problem for years now. The majority of victims suffer harassment, and are ignored by law enforcement and government officials.
Graham Brown-Martin, a cyberstalking victim turned advocate, has done great things in the UK to help expose the harsh realities faced by victims. His cyberstalking documentary is a must see, and includes the intimate details of his family's experience of cyberstalking.
The U.S. must do more to help promote awareness regarding the subject of cyberstalking. Law enforcement, prosecutors, advocates, and the general public, need to be informed of this crime, now more than ever.
As technology evolves, so do cyberstalker's maneuvers. Survivors In Action is proud of their efforts to serve victims of cyberstalking, to ensure that "No Victim is Left Behind". Even though Survivors In Action is taking an active part in the solution, there is still much more work that needs to be done. This is work that SIA is not able to do because of lack of funding and resources.
We need the public's support now more than ever to help send the message loud and clear to public officials across the U.S. We need to let them know that cyberstalking is a real crime that must be addressed with "real" efforts, so that "No Victim is Left Behind".
If you are a victim of cyberstalking, please visit the Survivors In Action site today for more information.
Survivors In Action
"No Victim Left Behind"
Cyberstalking awareness is something that I am personally very passionate about. Being cyberstalked myself for a few years, I endured hell, and learned very quickly that law enforcement was not prepared to help. Because of this, I had two choices:
1) I could sit on the sidelines and be derailed by the cyberstalker; or
2) I could take action and help promote awareness, so that "no victim is left behind" and left to endure the hell alone as I was
Survivors In Action is taking option number 2, and that is something I am very proud of. Thanks to over three thousand volunteers, victims of crime now have a new resource to turn to. Sadly however, Survivors In Action's work is far from over. Cyberstalking awareness is at an all time low in the U.S. Thousands of victims every month who bravely seek help are being ignored, or are denied help altogether. Without resources being allocated to organizations like Survivors In Action, this problem will continue.
There is not enough training regarding the subject of cyberstalking; and tragically, victims of cyberstalking continue to fall through the cracks. Restraining orders don't work to prohibit cyberstalking, and those who report the crime to law enforcement often still find themselves being ignored or given the run around - even today, as we near 2010.
There are very few resources out there for victims. It is inevitable that as the use of technology continues to grow, so will the number of victims who are cyberstalked.
Christopher Burgess, tech security expert, author and SIA advisory board member, explained clearly that "cyberstalking is not a new phenomena". This makes matters even worse, as it is proof that our nation has continued to ignore the problem for years now. The majority of victims suffer harassment, and are ignored by law enforcement and government officials.
Graham Brown-Martin, a cyberstalking victim turned advocate, has done great things in the UK to help expose the harsh realities faced by victims. His cyberstalking documentary is a must see, and includes the intimate details of his family's experience of cyberstalking.
The U.S. must do more to help promote awareness regarding the subject of cyberstalking. Law enforcement, prosecutors, advocates, and the general public, need to be informed of this crime, now more than ever.
As technology evolves, so do cyberstalker's maneuvers. Survivors In Action is proud of their efforts to serve victims of cyberstalking, to ensure that "No Victim is Left Behind". Even though Survivors In Action is taking an active part in the solution, there is still much more work that needs to be done. This is work that SIA is not able to do because of lack of funding and resources.
We need the public's support now more than ever to help send the message loud and clear to public officials across the U.S. We need to let them know that cyberstalking is a real crime that must be addressed with "real" efforts, so that "No Victim is Left Behind".
If you are a victim of cyberstalking, please visit the Survivors In Action site today for more information.
Survivors In Action
"No Victim Left Behind"
Monday, November 9, 2009
Become a fan of Survivors In Action on Facebook, help support our cause "No Victim Left Behind"
Support and help to ensure that "No victim is Left Behind"Survivors In Action on Facebook
Survivors In Action
"No Victim Left Behind"
Visit Survivors In Action on Facebook
Become a fan of Survivors In Action on Facebook, help support our cause "No Victim Left Behind"
Support and help to ensure that "No victim is Left Behind"Survivors In Action on Facebook
Survivors In Action
"No Victim Left Behind"
Visit Survivors In Action on Facebook
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Unblock calls made to cell phones, new tech may aid stalking victims
New technology is available that will unblock anonymous calls made to cellular phones. For many stalking victims who receive hundreds of harassing calls to their cell phones from blocked numbers each month this may be a blessing and a good thing.
For those who are seeking privacy protection to avoid detection from domestic abusers and the like, it is very important that you become aware of this technology and respond accordingly by using alternative communication devices including prepaid cell phones that are not traceable etc..
READ New York Times Column about TrapCall by Elizabeth Olson
PRIOR PRESS RELEASE FROM TELTECH CORP:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 12th, 2009
TelTech Systems Inc
http://www.teltechcorp.com
http://www.trapcall.com/
Teltech systems—the leading innovators of communications technology such as “SpoofCard” and “LiarCard”, is excited to introduce “Trapcall” the first cell phone technology that unblocks blocked calls, and so much more.
After having great success with the oft-controversial SpoofCard, Teltech is excited to launch their latest endeavor: Trapcall. Trapcall not only unmasks blocked or restricted calls, but it is also the first technology that can record incoming calls—a first in cell phone technology!
So how does it work?
For something originally based on military-level counterintelligence technology, it’s ridiculously simple: After signing up, simply enter a few numbers into your cell phone with absolutely no downloads or software needed. When a blocked or restricted call shows up on your cell, reject it (no one really wants to answer an unknown number anyway right?). In a matter of seconds, the blocked call is sent to our servers, where it is instantly unmasked and sent back to your phone! All the while the caller hears a normal ring tone, oblivious to the fact that you know exactly who they are.
How else can Trapcall help me?
Sure, Trapcall unmasks blocked calls, and that in itself is awesome, but users visiting Trapcall.com will find that this is only the beginning of Trapcall’s extensive list of features. Recording incoming calls (which has never been possible on cell phones), voicemail transcriptions, online management… It’s an impressive piece of technology. The best part is that Trapcall offers multiple plans that are sure to suit individual needs. Heck, there’s even a free version for those who would like to give it a shot.
For more information and a full list of Trapcall’s exciting features, please visit Trapcall.com, or contact:
TelTech Systems Inc
Tel. 732.276.1300 ext. 302
http://www.TrapCall.com
Survivors In Action
"No Victim Left Behind"
Friday, November 6, 2009
Cyberstalking experts indicate no end in sight
Christopher Burgess, tech security expert and Survivors In Action advisory board member, most recent blog provides much needed discussion regarding how little forward progress has been made in preventing or protection victims of cyberstalking emphasizing further that not all 50 states have cyberstalking laws on the books, which I know is making it more difficult for victims to find resolve and support.
Often I am asked about Cyberstalking stats, they are not readily available as is the data from other crimes cyberstalking is not a crime in all 50 states and many states tend to lump cyberstalking crimes with identity theft making statistical data almost impossible to obtain until something changes. To learn more about cyberstalking facts and statistics read you need to read this piece on the topic for About.com by Alexis A. Moore
Survivors In Action
"No Victim Left Behind"
Often I am asked about Cyberstalking stats, they are not readily available as is the data from other crimes cyberstalking is not a crime in all 50 states and many states tend to lump cyberstalking crimes with identity theft making statistical data almost impossible to obtain until something changes. To learn more about cyberstalking facts and statistics read you need to read this piece on the topic for About.com by Alexis A. Moore
Survivors In Action
"No Victim Left Behind"
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Wiconsin Court of Appeals grants use of GPS in stalking cases
Wisconsin Court Appeals grants use of GPS for evidentiary purposes in stalking cases. Although the opinion indicates this was with much reservation, this is a victory for stalking victims who far too often encounter years of harassment without the evidence necessary to convict the stalker.
There is much more our legislature needs to do to ensure that the use of GPS monitoring of domestic batterers and stalkers is available and not met with resistance so that "No Victim is Left Behind".
I support the use of GPS technology in stalking and domestic violence cases.
No one should have to live or work in fear.
###
Appeal No.
2008AP658-CR
Cir. Ct. No. 2003CF1783
STATE OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF WISCONSIN,
PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
V.
MICHAEL A. SVEUM,
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
APPEAL from a judgment and an order of the circuit court for Dane County: STEVEN D. EBERT, Judge. Affirmed.
Before Dykman, Lundsten and Bridge, JJ.
¶1 LUNDSTEN, J. Michael Sveum challenges his aggravated stalking conviction. At Sveum’s jury trial, the prosecution presented detailed tracking information about the movements of Sveum’s car obtained from a Global Positioning System tracking device (GPS device) that police secretly attached to his car. Sveum argues that the police obtained this tracking information in violation of his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. The State responds that no Fourth Amendment search or seizure occurs when police attach a GPS device to the outside of a vehicle while it is in a place accessible to the public and then use that device to track the vehicle while it is in public view. We agree with the State. At the same time, we urge the legislature to consider regulating both police and private use of GPS tracking technology.
¶2 Sveum’s other challenges to his conviction include whether the GPS tracking information should be suppressed under the Wisconsin Electronic Surveillance Control Law, whether a search warrant for Sveum’s residence and car was valid, whether the circuit court committed error by admitting evidence of Sveum’s prior stalking conviction, whether Sveum’s trial counsel was ineffective, and whether an erroneous jury instruction requires a new trial. We reject all of Sveum’s arguments and affirm the judgment and order.
Background
¶3 Sveum was convicted of stalking Jamie Johnson in 1996 and was later imprisoned for related crimes against Johnson. In 1999, from prison, he began stalking Johnson again with help from his sister. Sveum continued stalking Johnson when he was released from prison in 2002. In March 2003, Johnson reported to the police that she believed Sveum was stalking her again.
¶4 As part of their investigation, police sought and received a warrant authorizing them to covertly attach a GPS device to Sveum’s car in order to track it. Based in part on tracking information retrieved from the GPS device, the police obtained a warrant to search one of Sveum’s residences and his car.[1] The search revealed additional evidence incriminating Sveum, along with evidence confirming his sister’s involvement.
¶5 Sveum was charged with an aggravated stalking offense under WIS. STAT. § 940.32(2) and (3)(b) (2001-02), as party to a crime.[2] The more serious “aggravated” version of the crime was charged based on Sveum’s previous conviction for stalking Johnson. See § 940.32(3)(b). The circuit court denied motions by Sveum to suppress evidence obtained from the GPS device and from the search of his residence and car. A jury found Sveum guilty, and the court sentenced him to seven years and six months in prison followed by five years of extended supervision. We discuss additional facts as needed below.
Discussion
A. Suppression Of GPS Evidence Under Fourth Amendment
¶6 Sveum challenges the admission of GPS tracking information showing the movements of his car. He argues that the warrant[3] authorizing police to place the GPS device on his car was overly broad. The State responds that the warrant was unnecessary because no Fourth Amendment search or seizure occurred. In reply, Sveum implicitly concedes that placing the GPS device on his car and using it to monitor public travel does not implicate the Fourth Amendment. He contends, however, that because the GPS device permitted the police to monitor the location of his car while it was in his garage and in his employer’s garage, places out of public view, all of the information obtained from the GPS device should have been suppressed. Because we agree with the State that no Fourth Amendment search or seizure occurred, we do not address Sveum’s warrant argument.
¶7 We begin with a recap of the pertinent facts. The battery-powered GPS device used here periodically receives and stores location information from one or more satellites. To obtain tracking information, the device must be physically retrieved and its information downloaded to a computer. The result is a detailed history, including time information, of the device’s location and, hence, the vehicle’s location. While Sveum’s car was in his driveway, police secretly attached the device to the underside of his car with a magnet and tape. The police tracked Sveum’s car with the device for about five weeks. During this time, Sveum parked his car in his enclosed garage and inside a garage at his place of employment, a car care center.
¶8 We agree with the State that neither a search nor a seizure occurs when the police use a GPS device to track a vehicle while it is visible to the general public. The seminal cases on this topic are United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (1983), and United States v. Karo, 468 U.S. 705 (1984).
¶9 In Knotts, government agents planted a “beeper”—a radio transmitter emitting periodic signals that permit tracking with a radio receiver—inside a five-gallon drum. See Knotts, 460 U.S. at 277-78. Using the beeper, the agents were able to track a vehicle transporting the drum and determine that it had come to rest on the defendant’s premises. Id. at 277-78, 282, 284-85. The Court held that the monitoring of the beeper while the vehicle was in public view did not invade any legitimate expectation of privacy and, therefore, did not constitute a search or seizure under the Fourth Amendment. Id. at 285. The Court reasoned that the device simply made it easier to discover what was already “voluntarily conveyed to anyone who wanted to look.” See id. at 281-82. The Court explained:
A person traveling in an automobile on public thoroughfares has no reasonable expectation of privacy in his movements from one place to another. When [one of the defendant’s accomplices] traveled over the public streets he voluntarily conveyed to anyone who wanted to look the fact that he was traveling over particular roads in a particular direction, the fact of whatever stops he made, and the fact of his final destination when he exited from public roads onto private property.
... [N]o ... expectation of privacy extended to the visual observation of [the] automobile arriving on [the private] premises after leaving a public highway, nor to movements of objects such as the drum of chloroform outside the cabin in the “open fields.”
Visual surveillance from public places along [the] route or adjoining Knotts’ premises would have sufficed to reveal all of these facts to the police.
Id. (citation omitted). The Knotts Court specifically noted that “nothing in [the] record indicates that the beeper signal was received or relied upon after it had indicated that the drum … had ended its automotive journey to rest on [defendant]’s premises.” Id. at 284-85. Similarly, “there [was] no indication that the beeper was used in any way to reveal information as to the movement of the drum within the [premises], or in any way that would not have been visible to the naked eye from outside the cabin.” Id. at 285. Thus, the Court concluded, the Fourth Amendment was not implicated. Id.
¶10 In contrast, a year later in Karo, the Court concluded that when police used a similar beeper planted in a similar container to determine how long the container remained at certain locations and to reveal the specific location of the container within a storage facility, a Fourth Amendment search occurred. See Karo, 468 U.S. at 708-10, 717-18 & n.5. The Karo Court explained that the government used the device to obtain “information that it could not have obtained by observation from outside the curtilage of the house.” See id. at 715-16.
¶11 Knotts and Karo teach that, to the extent a tracking device reveals vehicle travel information visible to the general public, and thus obtainable by warrantless visual surveillance, the use of the device does not normally implicate Fourth Amendment protections. It follows that no Fourth Amendment violation occurred here simply because the police used a GPS device to obtain information about Sveum’s car that was visible to the general public.
¶12 We also agree with the State that the police action of attaching the GPS device to Sveum’s car, either by itself or in combination with subsequent tracking, does not constitute a search or seizure.[4] The State aptly relies on United States v. Garcia, 474 F.3d 994 (7th Cir. 2007).
¶13 The Garcia court concluded that attaching a GPS device to a car while the car was in a public place did not convert the subsequent tracking into a Fourth Amendment search. See id. at 996-98. The court reasoned:
[I]f police follow a car around, or observe its route by means of cameras mounted on lampposts or of satellite imaging as in Google Earth, there is no search. Well, but the tracking in this case was by satellite. Instead of transmitting images, the satellite transmitted geophysical coordinates. The only difference is that in the imaging case nothing touches the vehicle, while in the case at hand the tracking device does. But it is a distinction without any practical difference.
Id. at 997. Like the Seventh Circuit, we discern no privacy interest protected by the Fourth Amendment that is invaded when police attach a GPS device to the outside of a vehicle, as long as the information obtained is the same as could be gained by the use of other techniques that do not require a warrant.
¶14 Sveum might respond that, unlike Garcia, the police here did not attach the GPS device while his car was parked in a public place. However, the circuit court concluded that Sveum’s driveway was not constitutionally protected “curtilage,” and Sveum does not challenge this ruling or otherwise present a developed argument as to why the police engaged in a search or seizure by entering his driveway.
¶15 Accordingly, we follow Garcia’s lead and conclude that the attachment of a GPS device to Sveum’s car does not change our view that, under Knotts and Karo, no Fourth Amendment search or seizure occurred here.
¶16 Sveum argues that all of the tracking information should be suppressed because the GPS device monitored the location of his car when it was out of public view. We reject this argument for two reasons.
¶17 First, although the police presumably obtained location information while Sveum’s car was inside areas not open to surveillance, there is no indication that this same information could not have been obtained by visual surveillance from outside these enclosures. Such surveillance could have told the police when Sveum’s car entered or exited his garage and the garage at his workplace and, therefore, informed them when his car remained in those places. Sveum does not argue that the police used the GPS device to track his car’s movements within the enclosures.
¶18 Second, even if the police had obtained some information about the movement of Sveum’s car within the enclosures and this information should have been suppressed, Sveum suggests no reason why all of the tracking information should be suppressed. Although we need not exhaustively analyze this issue, we note that properly obtained evidence is generally not excluded simply because a search is illegally extended to improperly obtain evidence. See State v. Noll, 116 Wis. 2d 443, 454-55, 343 N.W.2d 391 (1984) (“Insofar as the searcher exceeds the scope of the validly authorized search, items so seized must be suppressed. However, as to those items discovered in the lawful execution of the valid part of the warrant, the Fourth Amendment does not require suppression.”). Similarly, properly obtained and incriminating wiretap information is not suppressed solely because police also overhear unrelated private conversations that they would otherwise have no right to overhear.[5] It is not apparent why a balancing of interests should not produce the same rule when applied to the GPS tracking situation here.
¶19 Accordingly, we conclude that no Fourth Amendment search or seizure occurs when police attach a GPS device to the outside of a vehicle while it is in a place accessible to the public and then use that device to track the vehicle while it is in public view. Because this case does not involve tracking information on the movement of Sveum’s car within a place protected by the Fourth Amendment, it follows that the circuit court correctly rejected Sveum’s Fourth Amendment suppression argument.
¶20 We are more than a little troubled by the conclusion that no Fourth Amendment search or seizure occurs when police use a GPS or similar device as they have here. So far as we can tell, existing law does not limit the government’s use of tracking devices to investigations of legitimate criminal suspects. If there is no Fourth Amendment search or seizure, police are seemingly free to secretly track anyone’s public movements with a GPS device. As the Seventh Circuit observed:
The new technologies enable, as the old (because of expense) do not, wholesale surveillance. One can imagine the police affixing GPS tracking devices to thousands of cars at random, recovering the devices, and using digital search techniques to identify suspicious driving patterns. One can even imagine a law requiring all new cars to come equipped with the device so that the government can keep track of all vehicular movement in the United States….
….
Technological progress poses a threat to privacy by enabling an extent of surveillance that in earlier times would have been prohibitively expensive.
Garcia, 474 F.3d at 998.
¶21 We are also concerned about the private use of GPS surveillance devices. As the Seventh Circuit and a recent New York Times article indicate, GPS technology is available at low cost to the general public. See Garcia, 474 F.3d at 995; David Pogue, Peekaboo, Zoombak Sees You, N.Y. TIMES, Apr. 23, 2009, at B1, B8. Although there are obviously legitimate private uses, such as a trucking company monitoring the location of its trucks, there are also many private uses that most reasonable people would agree should be prohibited.[6]
¶22 Consequently, we urge the legislature to explore imposing limitations on the use of GPS and similar devices by both government and private actors. Such limitations would appear to be consistent with limitations the legislature has placed on electronic intercepts of communications. See Wisconsin’s Electronic Surveillance Control Law, WIS. STAT. §§ 968.27-.33 (2007-08).[7]
B. Suppression Of GPS Evidence Under Electronic Surveillance Control Law
¶23 As we have seen, the GPS device used here recorded location information that was downloaded from the device after it was retrieved from Sveum’s car. The device did not emit a signal permitting the police to contemporaneously track Sveum’s car. It is this aspect of the GPS device that prompts Sveum to challenge its use under Wisconsin’s Electronic Surveillance Control Law, WIS. STAT. §§ 968.27-.33.
¶24 The Electronic Surveillance Control Law governs the lawfulness and uses of intercepts of “wire, electronic or oral communications.” See WIS. STAT. §§ 968.28-.31. The law governs the in-court disclosure of the contents of intercepts of “electronic communications.” See WIS. STAT. § 968.29; State v. Gilmore, 201 Wis. 2d 820, 825, 549 N.W.2d 401 (1996) (“Wisconsin Stat. § 968.29 states the conditions under which disclosure is authorized.”).
¶25 Sveum argues that the GPS evidence here was obtained from “electronic communication[s]” covered by the Electronic Surveillance Control Law and should have been suppressed because of noncompliance with several provisions in the law. The threshold question is whether the GPS device used to track Sveum’s car produced covered electronic communications or, instead, is excluded from the law’s coverage because it is a “tracking device” under WIS. STAT. § 968.27(4)(d). This threshold question involves the application of a statute to undisputed facts, a question of law that we review de novo. State v. Wilke, 152 Wis. 2d 243, 247, 448 N.W.2d 13 (Ct. App. 1989). We give statutory language its common, ordinary, and accepted meaning, except that technical or specially defined words or phrases are given their technical or special definitional meaning. State ex rel. Kalal v. Circuit Court for Dane County, 2004 WI 58, ¶45, 271 Wis. 2d 633, 681 N.W.2d 110. Also, we must construe statutes to avoid absurd or unreasonable results. Id., ¶46.
¶26 As Sveum acknowledges, the Electronic Surveillance Control Law expressly excludes from the definition of “electronic communication” those communications from tracking devices. WISCONSIN STAT. § 968.27(4)(d) provides, in pertinent part:
“Electronic communication” does not include any of the following:
....
(d) Any communication from a tracking device.
“[T]racking device” is not defined in the statute, but we agree with the State that the GPS device here is such a device because, so far as the record discloses, its sole function was to track the location of Sveum’s car.
¶27 Our Electronic Surveillance Control Law is modeled on a federal act, and Sveum asserts that the “statutory history” of the federal act defines a tracking device as a communication device that “emits a signal” that can be received by special tracking equipment to trace location. Sveum argues that the GPS device here is not a “tracking device” because it does not emit any signal. Rather, it receives signals and stores data that can be retrieved later. We are not persuaded.
¶28 Sveum provides only a record citation for his “statutory history” argument, and it leaves unclear what legal authority he is relying on. Our research, based on the limited information referenced in the record, suggests that Sveum is relying on a Senate Report that accompanied the 1986 update to the federal act. The Report includes a preliminary “glossary,” which defines “electronic tracking devices (transponders)” as Sveum’s argument indicates. See S. REP. NO. 99-541, at *10 (1986). Sveum’s reliance on this Senate Report, however, runs headlong into the express language of the enacted federal law, which broadly defines a “tracking device” as “an electronic or mechanical device which permits the tracking of the movement of a person or object.” See 18 U.S.C.S. § 2510(12)(D) (incorporating the definition in 18 U.S.C.S. § 3117). Indeed, the Senate Report, in its “section-by-section” analysis of the act, references the same definition that appears in the enacted statutes. See S. REP. NO. 99-541, at *33-34. Sveum does not explain why the “glossary” definition in the Senate Report should control over this plain-language statutory definition, which obviously covers the GPS device used here. Regardless whether it emitted a signal, the GPS device enabled the police to track, after the fact, the movements of Sveum’s car.
¶29 Sveum also points out that the tracking device exception in our Electronic Surveillance Control Law refers to “[a]ny communication from a tracking device.” WIS. STAT. § 968.27(4)(d) (emphasis added). He argues that this phrasing shows that the exception applies only to devices that emit some sort of signal, not to a device like a GPS device that only receives and records data for access at a later time. Sveum’s argument, however, erroneously assumes that the communication “from” the device must be simultaneous with the tracked movement. But the statutory language imposes no such requirement. Although obtained later, the information did indeed come “from” the tracking device.
¶30 Moreover, the distinction Sveum suggests is not reasonable. It is not rational to limit the admission of tracking information based on whether it is obtained in real time by a signal or at a later time by direct access to the device. Thus, Sveum’s interpretation of the statute would lead to unreasonable results.
C. Search Warrant For Sveum’s Residence And Car
¶31 Sveum divides his challenge to the search warrant for his residence and his car into two categories. First, he argues that the warrant application lacked probable cause. Second, he argues that the warrant did not describe the items to be seized with sufficient particularity. We address each in turn.
1. Probable Cause
¶32 Our duty on review is limited to ensuring that the warrant-issuing judge had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed. State v. DeSmidt, 155 Wis. 2d 119, 133, 454 N.W.2d 780 (1990). We accord great deference to the judge’s probable cause determination; that determination will stand unless the defendant establishes that the facts are clearly insufficient to support a finding of probable cause. State v. Higginbotham, 162 Wis. 2d 978, 989, 471 N.W.2d 24 (1991).
¶33 Sveum argues that there was insufficient probable cause for the warrant to authorize seizure of the following items: journals, calendars, logs documenting travel or appointments, binoculars, flashlights, ski masks, documents mentioning Johnson and certain other individuals, and personal information related to Johnson or her family.
¶34 Sveum concedes that the warrant affidavit established that he used or kept many such items in connection with his 1996 stalking conviction, but asserts that the application did not provide probable cause to believe that he was keeping such items in 2003.[8] We disagree.
¶35 The warrant affidavit stated that the affiant was a detective with twenty-two years of experience who had specialized training in stalking crimes. See State v. Multaler, 2002 WI 35, ¶43, 252 Wis. 2d 54, 643 N.W.2d 437 (experience and special knowledge of police officers who are applying for search warrant are facts that warrant-issuing judge may consider). The detective explained in the affidavit that, based on her training and experience, individuals who engage in stalking behavior often display an obsessive personality and exhibit a pattern of conduct, including maintaining visual proximity to the victim, contacting the victim, and keeping records, journals, or other documents memorializing their stalking behavior. Also, such individuals often keep evidence of their obsession with the victim, including records, journals, diaries, calendars of the victim’s activities or the activities of other family members, personal information, or computer records.
¶36 The affidavit also indicated that the affiant had investigated Sveum’s prior stalking crime, and it detailed the many ways that Sveum’s conduct surrounding the 1996 conviction was consistent with behaviors characteristically exhibited by individuals who stalk. In particular, Sveum at that time kept calendars marking down anniversary dates of his time with Johnson, tracked the mileage on Johnson’s car, documented Johnson’s whereabouts, and retained “keepsakes,” including earrings, underwear, and a duplicate driver’s license of Johnson’s. The affidavit also outlined the evidence establishing that Sveum was again stalking Johnson in 2003.
¶37 When we consider all of the information in the warrant affidavit, we conclude that the affidavit established probable cause to believe that the items enumerated could be evidence of Sveum’s 2003 stalking crime.
¶38 Sveum argues that the warrant should not have allowed police to seize computer equipment because the warrant affidavit lacked specific facts to show that a computer may have contained evidence of stalking. He asserts that nothing in the affidavit shows that he used a computer in the 1996 stalking. We are not persuaded. It is readily inferable from the warrant affidavit that Sveum’s past stalking conduct involved obsessively detailed logging, calendaring, and tracking of information relating to Johnson. Given this inference, along with the increasing prevalence of computerized information and personal computing between 1996 and 2003, the warrant-issuing judge could have reasonably inferred that Sveum may have been using a computer in connection with stalking Johnson in 2003 even if he had not used a computer to stalk Johnson in 1996. See State v. Benoit, 83 Wis. 2d 389, 399, 265 N.W.2d 298 (1978) (warrant judge may draw reasonable inferences from the evidence presented in the affidavit).
2. Particularity
¶39 Sveum argues that the warrant failed to describe the items sought with sufficient particularity. Under the Fourth Amendment, a warrant must “particularly describ[e] the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” Our supreme court has recognized that, in practice, this means that a warrant should describe items to be seized “with as much particularity and specificity as the circumstances and the nature of activity under investigation permit[].” See State v. Petrone, 161 Wis. 2d 530, 541, 468 N.W.2d 676 (1991).
¶40 Sveum’s particularity argument is that the many items authorized for seizure were so “non-specific” that the warrant was an invalid general warrant. Police were authorized to seize phone bills, journals, calendars, logs, computers and devices related to computers, cameras and film, binoculars, flashlights, ski masks, audio and/or video recording equipment in any format, and evidence that might identify the residents of the searched dwelling. Sveum also argues that the warrant lacked probable cause to seize some of the types of items identified in the warrant because he and his mother occupied the residence and the warrant lacked objective standards by which the executing officers could differentiate items his mother owned. We reject Sveum’s arguments. We perceive no reason, at least in this case, why guidelines would have been helpful or necessary. Tellingly, Sveum does not suggest what sorts of ownership guidelines would have been required to satisfy his view of the particularity requirement. We conclude that the warrant described the items to be seized with as much particularity and specificity as the circumstances and the nature of Sveum’s alleged stalking activity permitted.
¶41 Furthermore, the two cases on which Sveum places primary reliance actually cut against him. In People v. Prall, 145 N.E. 610 (Ill. 1924), the authorities could have, but did not, describe the stolen property sought with precision by reference to serial numbers. See id. at 612. No similar identifying information could have assisted in limiting the seizures here.
¶42 Sveum’s reliance on United States v. Klein, 565 F.2d 183 (1st Cir. 1977), is similarly misplaced. Klein involved whether the description, “pirate reproduction,” sufficiently informed the officers executing a warrant how to distinguish between pirated and non-pirated merchandise. See id. at 184-87. But that case makes plain the court’s view that differentiating between the two types of merchandise was a technical endeavor based on criteria that would not generally have been known to the police officers executing the warrant. See id. at 186 & n.5, 188-89.[9]
D. Evidence Of Prior Stalking Conviction
¶43 Sveum was convicted of aggravated stalking based on his 1996 stalking conviction. Proof of this particular aggravated stalking crime requires proof of a previous conviction for a violent crime or a stalking crime involving the same victim pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 940.32(3)(b). Sveum argues that the circuit court erred by admitting evidence of his prior stalking conviction after he had agreed to stipulate to the conviction. The legal basis for Sveum’s argument is difficult to discern, but he relies on State v. Alexander, 214 Wis. 2d 628, 571 N.W.2d 662 (1997), a case holding that a defendant’s prior drunk driving convictions should not have gone to the jury, even though proof of the prior convictions was necessary to prove the drunk driving charge at issue in that case. Whatever persuasive value Alexander may have had in a stalking case was put to rest in State v. Warbelton, 2009 WI 6, ¶40, __ Wis. 2d __, 759 N.W.2d 557. In Warbelton, also a stalking case, the court expressly declined to apply Alexander and held that Alexander applies only to drunk driving prosecutions. Warbelton, 2009 WI 6, ¶¶3, 46, 61. We are bound by Warbelton.
E. Ineffective Assistance Of Trial Counsel
¶44 Sveum argues that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel in several respects. The two-pronged deficient performance/prejudice test we apply to such claims is well established and we do not repeat it in further detail here. We address each of Sveum’s ineffective assistance claims in the sections that follow.
1. Jury Selection
¶45 Sveum argues that counsel was ineffective during jury selection by failing to ask potential jurors whether knowledge of Sveum’s prior conviction for stalking Johnson would prevent them from being fair and impartial. It appears that Sveum has not demonstrated either deficient performance or prejudice, but we will limit our discussion to his failure to show prejudice.
¶46 Sveum’s prejudice argument consists only of the speculative assertion that “due to counsel’s deficiency, there is no assurance that Sveum’s … right to an impartial jury was honored” (emphasis added). In the face of the same argument in the context of a sexual assault charge, we explained that the defendant “needed to show that if his trial counsel had asked more or better questions, those questions would have resulted in the discovery of bias on the part of at least one of the jurors who actually decided his case.” State v. Koller, 2001 WI App 253, ¶¶11-16, 248 Wis. 2d 259, 635 N.W.2d 838. As in Koller, Sveum makes no such showing.
2. Evidence Of Pending Appeal
¶47 At the time of Sveum’s trial in this case in 2006, an appeal from a denial of a writ of habeas corpus attacking his 1996 conviction was pending. Sveum points to language in WIS. STAT. § 906.09(5) (2005-06), which provides that “[e]vidence of the pendency of an appeal is admissible,” and argues that his trial counsel was ineffective because counsel failed to introduce evidence of his pending appeal.
¶48 The State responds that, because the pending appeal was not a direct appeal but a collateral challenge after Sveum’s direct appeal failed, the pending appeal was not an “appeal” within the meaning of WIS. STAT. § 906.09(5) (2005-06). We need not address this argument because, regardless of the proper interpretation of the statute, Sveum has not demonstrated deficient performance or prejudice. We agree with the State’s alternative argument that it would have been a reasonable strategic choice by counsel not to introduce evidence of the pending challenge to Sveum’s 1996 conviction because the prosecutor would have countered with damaging proof that Sveum’s direct appeal from the 1996 conviction had failed.
3. Cross-Examination Of The Alleged Stalking Victim
¶49 At trial, Johnson, the stalking victim, provided strong testimony against Sveum, such as her assertion that, during one encounter in 1994, Sveum grabbed her and told her that one day when she came home he would be hiding in the bushes and would blow her head off. Sveum argues that it was, therefore, critical to impeach Johnson’s credibility and that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance when counsel failed to use information Sveum provided to cross-examine Johnson. For example, Sveum says he advised his counsel about police reports proving that Johnson had voluntary contacts with him after the alleged threat, and that counsel failed to use this information to impeach Johnson.
¶50 We have examined each cross-examination failure Sveum alleges, and conclude that he has failed to show ineffective assistance. For example, we agree that if Johnson had voluntary contact with Sveum after the alleged death threat, such contact might lead a jury to think it less likely that the threat occurred. Sveum cites State v. Thiel, 2003 WI 111, ¶64, 264 Wis. 2d 571, 665 N.W.2d 305, to support this common-sense observation. But, just as the Thiel court concluded that the failure to use such information to impeach the victim, standing alone, did not undermine the court’s confidence in the outcome, see id., ¶81, we similarly conclude that the failure does not undermine our confidence in the jury’s verdict here.
¶51 We agree with the circuit court that, given the long history of Sveum’s stalking conduct toward Johnson, attempts to impeach Johnson as Sveum suggests could easily have backfired. Moreover, much of the information Sveum relies on could have been readily explainable, and none of it would have been likely to have destroyed Johnson’s credibility or made her seem less credible than Sveum. Sveum chose not to testify and, even assuming he had, it strains credulity to think the jury would have found him more credible than Johnson. The evidence at trial, which included Sveum’s sister’s testimony and correspondence between Sveum and his sister, showed that Sveum was highly deceptive and manipulative. Accordingly, Sveum has not shown deficient performance or prejudice based on counsel’s failure to cross-examine Johnson with the information identified.
4. Failure To Object During Sveum’s Sister’s Testimony
¶52 Under cross-examination, Sveum’s counsel elicited testimony from Sveum’s sister, Renee, that she knew Sveum well and would not have helped Sveum if she thought he would harm Johnson. On redirect, the State asked Renee if she knew that Sveum had threatened to blow Johnson’s head off, and Renee replied, “no.” Sveum argues that, because Renee was the first witness to testify and Johnson had not yet testified about Sveum’s threat, counsel was ineffective by failing to object for lack of foundation. This argument is meritless. Although it appears to be true that the question lacked a foundation when asked because Johnson had yet to testify, we agree with the State that the same question could have been posed to Sveum’s sister either by recalling her after Johnson testified or by permitting the question in hypothetical form because it was known that Johnson would testify about the death threat.
5. Failure To Request Limiting Instruction On Other Acts Evidence
¶53 The prosecutor presented evidence of Sveum’s 1996 conviction for stalking Johnson and Sveum’s behavior underlying that conviction. This evidence included Johnson’s testimony that, among other things, Sveum went into Johnson’s car and removed items, had a key made when Johnson got a different car, and left phone messages saying that Johnson would “be sorry” if she did not pick up the phone. Sveum asserts that this was “other acts” evidence and that his counsel should have requested a limiting instruction explaining to the jury that this evidence could not be used to infer that he had a propensity to commit this type of crime.
¶54 Sveum does not explain why a limiting instruction would likely have made a difference in the verdict in light of the types of concerns associated with other acts evidence. Rather, his argument seems to be that counsel’s failure to request a limiting instruction was per se deficient performance and resulted in per se prejudice. We disagree.
¶55 WISCONSIN STAT. § 901.06 (2005-06) provides: “When evidence which is admissible as to one party or for one purpose but not admissible as to another party or for another purpose is admitted, the judge, upon request, shall restrict the evidence to its proper scope and instruct the jury accordingly.” Thus, this statute requires an instruction when one is requested. The logical corollary is that an instruction is not required every time evidence is admitted for one purpose, but is not admissible for another, and, therefore, it is not per se deficient performance to fail to request an instruction.
¶56 Sveum also asserts that counsel’s failure to request a limiting instruction implicates double jeopardy, the statute of limitations, due process, and equal protection. We agree with the State that these arguments are insufficiently developed and, therefore, address them no further. See State v. Pettit, 171 Wis. 2d 627, 646-47, 492 N.W.2d 633 (Ct. App. 1992) (we need not consider arguments that are inadequately briefed).
F. Erroneous Jury Instruction
¶57 The parties agree that the jury instruction on one element of stalking, under WIS. STAT. § 940.32(3), was partially incorrect. Specifically, as to the “course of conduct” element, the jury was instructed that the acts constituting a “course of conduct” are limited to:
1) “maintaining visual or physical proximity to Jamie Johnson,” or
2) “contacting Jamie Johnson by telephone or causing Jamie Johnson’s telephone or any other person’s telephone to ring repeatedly or continuously regardless of whether a conversation ensues,” or
3) “causing any person to engage in either of the acts described [above].”
The causing-any-person part of this instruction was incorrect because of its reference to the two acts described in items 1) and 2). The “causing any person” alternative did not, at the relevant time, include causing these two acts. See § 940.32(1)(a) (2001-02). Thus, the jury was erroneously told that the “course of conduct” element could be met if Sveum caused his sister Renee to engage in either of these acts.[10]
¶58 Sveum correctly argues that this type of instructional error was cause for reversal in United States Supreme Court cases as recent as Boyde v. California, 494 U.S. 370 (1990). Since Boyde, however, the Court has concluded that harmless error analysis applies to such error. Hedgpeth v. Pulido, 129 S. Ct. 530, 532 (2008). We agree with the State that the error here was harmless.
¶59 For purposes of our harmless error discussion, we will assume without deciding that Sveum is correct that the proper harmless error test is the one set forth in State v. Dyess, 124 Wis. 2d 525, 370 N.W.2d 222 (1985). Under Dyess, the State must establish that there is “no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the conviction.” Id. at 543. Sveum argues that the test is not met here because it is impossible to know whether one or more of the jurors voted to convict him relying solely on evidence that he caused his sister to engage in stalking conduct. We are confident that did not occur.
¶60 The jury heard evidence that Sveum’s sister maintained proximity to Johnson or made prohibited phone contacts to Johnson at Sveum’s behest while he was in prison. But the jury also heard essentially uncontested evidence that, soon after Sveum was released from electronic monitoring, he began making hang-up calls to Johnson, often immediately after she arrived home. This evidence demonstrated not only that Sveum was engaging in prohibited phone contacts, but that he was also maintaining visual or physical proximity to Johnson on a recurring basis. Moreover, with exceptions not relevant here, Sveum’s trial counsel did not attempt to persuade the jury that Sveum did not engage in the conduct alleged after he was released from prison. Rather, counsel disputed other elements. Counsel candidly stated in closing argument: “[Y]ou’re asked to take a course of conduct which obviously is present and still decide if what happened here is stalking.” (Emphasis added.) Counsel continued: “The course of conduct is present but you’re being asked to decide if the other elements of the crime are also present ….”
¶61 We perceive no reason why any juror would have rejected evidence of Sveum’s post-incarceration behavior and relied instead only on his sister’s conduct. Accordingly, we conclude that the instructional error was harmless.[11]
Conclusion
¶62 For all of the reasons stated above, we affirm the judgment of conviction and the order denying postconviction relief.
By the Court.—Judgment and order affirmed.
[1] The warrant application suggests that there may have been some question as to which of two residences was Sveum’s primary residence. That question is not important for purposes here, and we will generally refer to Sveum’s residence without specifying which residence we mean.
[2] All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2001-02 version unless otherwise noted. The stalking statute under which Sveum was charged provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
(1) In this section:
(a) “Course of conduct” means a series of 2 or more acts carried out over time, however short or long, that show a continuity of purpose, including any of the following:
1. Maintaining a visual or physical proximity to the victim.
….
6. Contacting the victim by telephone or causing the victim’s telephone or any other person’s telephone to ring repeatedly or continuously, regardless of whether a conversation ensues.
….
(2) Whoever meets all of the following criteria is guilty of a Class I felony:
(a) The actor intentionally engages in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that would cause a reasonable person under the same circumstances to fear bodily injury to or the death of himself or herself or a member of his or her family or household.
(b) The actor intends that at least one of the acts that constitute the course of conduct will place the specific person in reasonable fear of bodily injury to or the death of himself or herself or a member of his or her family or household.
(c) The actor’s acts induce fear in the specific person of bodily injury to or the death of himself or herself or a member of his or her family or household.
….
(3) Whoever violates sub. (2) is guilty of a Class F felony if any of the following applies:
….
(b) The actor has … a previous conviction under this section …, the victim of that crime is the victim of the present violation of sub. (2), and the present violation occurs within 7 years after the prior conviction.
WIS. STAT. § 940.32.
[3] Whether the court order that authorized police use of the GPS device here can technically be considered a warrant is unclear, but resolving this question is not important for purposes of our decision.
[4] In United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (1983), the Supreme Court did not address the issue because the defendant there believed he lacked standing to challenge the placement of the “beeper.” Id. at 279 n.*.
[5] We are aware of no constitutional rule that requires suppression of incriminating conversations obtained by an authorized wiretap solely because the wiretap also captures private conversations in which the government has no legitimate interest and could not otherwise intercept. We note, however, that federal and Wisconsin law require that authorities “minimize” the interception of the latter category of conversations. See Scott v. United States, 436 U.S. 128, 140 (1978) (“[18 U.S.C. § 2518(5)] does not forbid the interception of all nonrelevant conversations, but rather instructs the agents to conduct the surveillance in such a manner as to ‘minimize’ the interception of such conversations.”); WIS. STAT. § 968.30(5) (2007-08) (Wisconsin’s counterpart to the federal minimization statute).
[6] In the stalking context, the “course of conduct” element can now be satisfied with evidence that a defendant used “electronic means” to monitor or record the activities of the victim. WIS. STAT. § 940.32(1)(a)6m. (2007-08). But that conduct alone is not prohibited. There must also be proof, among other elements, that the course of conduct would cause a reasonable person to suffer emotional distress or fear harm. WIS. STAT. § 940.32(2) (2007-08). Thus, using a GPS device to secretly monitor someone, without more, is not prohibited by the stalking statute.
[7] All references to Wisconsin’s Electronic Surveillance Control Law, WIS. STAT. §§ 968.27-.33, are to the 2007-08 version.
[8] The complaint states that Sveum’s 2003 charge for stalking covered conduct from 1999 through 2003 but, for ease of discussion, we refer to Sveum’s conduct only by reference to 2003.
[9] Sveum also argues that the officers exceeded the scope of the warrant when they seized financial documents. Sveum does not, however, indicate what types of financial documents he is talking about or explain why such documents fell outside the scope of the warrant. Accordingly, we consider this argument no further. See State v. Pettit, 171 Wis. 2d 627, 646-47, 492 N.W.2d 633 (Ct. App. 1992) (we need not consider arguments that are inadequately briefed).
[10] In a subsequent version of the statute, the causing-any-person alternative applies to all of the other types of acts listed, including the two listed in Sveum’s jury instruction. See WIS. STAT. § 940.32(1)(a) (2003-04).
[11] We note that, consistent with Sveum’s charge, the jury was given the party-to-a-crime instruction. Sveum argues that this instruction “compounded” the error because applying the party-to-a-crime statute to the stalking statute would render WIS. STAT. § 940.32(1)(a)10. superfluous. Sveum does not develop this argument until his reply brief, and even then he does not address case law setting forth the standards for determining whether the party-to-a-crime statute applies. See, e.g., State v. Tronca, 84 Wis. 2d 68, 84-85, 267 N.W.2d 216 (1978); State v. Curbello-Rodriguez, 119 Wis. 2d 414, 432-33, 351 N.W.2d 758 (Ct. App. 1984). Accordingly, we decline to address this topic further. See Pettit, 171 Wis. 2d at 646-47.
Special thank you to Rhonda Martinson with the Battered Women's Justice Project for this information.
Survivors In Action
"No Victim Left Behind"
There is much more our legislature needs to do to ensure that the use of GPS monitoring of domestic batterers and stalkers is available and not met with resistance so that "No Victim is Left Behind".
I support the use of GPS technology in stalking and domestic violence cases.
No one should have to live or work in fear.
###
Appeal No.
2008AP658-CR
Cir. Ct. No. 2003CF1783
STATE OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF WISCONSIN,
PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
V.
MICHAEL A. SVEUM,
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
APPEAL from a judgment and an order of the circuit court for Dane County: STEVEN D. EBERT, Judge. Affirmed.
Before Dykman, Lundsten and Bridge, JJ.
¶1 LUNDSTEN, J. Michael Sveum challenges his aggravated stalking conviction. At Sveum’s jury trial, the prosecution presented detailed tracking information about the movements of Sveum’s car obtained from a Global Positioning System tracking device (GPS device) that police secretly attached to his car. Sveum argues that the police obtained this tracking information in violation of his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. The State responds that no Fourth Amendment search or seizure occurs when police attach a GPS device to the outside of a vehicle while it is in a place accessible to the public and then use that device to track the vehicle while it is in public view. We agree with the State. At the same time, we urge the legislature to consider regulating both police and private use of GPS tracking technology.
¶2 Sveum’s other challenges to his conviction include whether the GPS tracking information should be suppressed under the Wisconsin Electronic Surveillance Control Law, whether a search warrant for Sveum’s residence and car was valid, whether the circuit court committed error by admitting evidence of Sveum’s prior stalking conviction, whether Sveum’s trial counsel was ineffective, and whether an erroneous jury instruction requires a new trial. We reject all of Sveum’s arguments and affirm the judgment and order.
Background
¶3 Sveum was convicted of stalking Jamie Johnson in 1996 and was later imprisoned for related crimes against Johnson. In 1999, from prison, he began stalking Johnson again with help from his sister. Sveum continued stalking Johnson when he was released from prison in 2002. In March 2003, Johnson reported to the police that she believed Sveum was stalking her again.
¶4 As part of their investigation, police sought and received a warrant authorizing them to covertly attach a GPS device to Sveum’s car in order to track it. Based in part on tracking information retrieved from the GPS device, the police obtained a warrant to search one of Sveum’s residences and his car.[1] The search revealed additional evidence incriminating Sveum, along with evidence confirming his sister’s involvement.
¶5 Sveum was charged with an aggravated stalking offense under WIS. STAT. § 940.32(2) and (3)(b) (2001-02), as party to a crime.[2] The more serious “aggravated” version of the crime was charged based on Sveum’s previous conviction for stalking Johnson. See § 940.32(3)(b). The circuit court denied motions by Sveum to suppress evidence obtained from the GPS device and from the search of his residence and car. A jury found Sveum guilty, and the court sentenced him to seven years and six months in prison followed by five years of extended supervision. We discuss additional facts as needed below.
Discussion
A. Suppression Of GPS Evidence Under Fourth Amendment
¶6 Sveum challenges the admission of GPS tracking information showing the movements of his car. He argues that the warrant[3] authorizing police to place the GPS device on his car was overly broad. The State responds that the warrant was unnecessary because no Fourth Amendment search or seizure occurred. In reply, Sveum implicitly concedes that placing the GPS device on his car and using it to monitor public travel does not implicate the Fourth Amendment. He contends, however, that because the GPS device permitted the police to monitor the location of his car while it was in his garage and in his employer’s garage, places out of public view, all of the information obtained from the GPS device should have been suppressed. Because we agree with the State that no Fourth Amendment search or seizure occurred, we do not address Sveum’s warrant argument.
¶7 We begin with a recap of the pertinent facts. The battery-powered GPS device used here periodically receives and stores location information from one or more satellites. To obtain tracking information, the device must be physically retrieved and its information downloaded to a computer. The result is a detailed history, including time information, of the device’s location and, hence, the vehicle’s location. While Sveum’s car was in his driveway, police secretly attached the device to the underside of his car with a magnet and tape. The police tracked Sveum’s car with the device for about five weeks. During this time, Sveum parked his car in his enclosed garage and inside a garage at his place of employment, a car care center.
¶8 We agree with the State that neither a search nor a seizure occurs when the police use a GPS device to track a vehicle while it is visible to the general public. The seminal cases on this topic are United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (1983), and United States v. Karo, 468 U.S. 705 (1984).
¶9 In Knotts, government agents planted a “beeper”—a radio transmitter emitting periodic signals that permit tracking with a radio receiver—inside a five-gallon drum. See Knotts, 460 U.S. at 277-78. Using the beeper, the agents were able to track a vehicle transporting the drum and determine that it had come to rest on the defendant’s premises. Id. at 277-78, 282, 284-85. The Court held that the monitoring of the beeper while the vehicle was in public view did not invade any legitimate expectation of privacy and, therefore, did not constitute a search or seizure under the Fourth Amendment. Id. at 285. The Court reasoned that the device simply made it easier to discover what was already “voluntarily conveyed to anyone who wanted to look.” See id. at 281-82. The Court explained:
A person traveling in an automobile on public thoroughfares has no reasonable expectation of privacy in his movements from one place to another. When [one of the defendant’s accomplices] traveled over the public streets he voluntarily conveyed to anyone who wanted to look the fact that he was traveling over particular roads in a particular direction, the fact of whatever stops he made, and the fact of his final destination when he exited from public roads onto private property.
... [N]o ... expectation of privacy extended to the visual observation of [the] automobile arriving on [the private] premises after leaving a public highway, nor to movements of objects such as the drum of chloroform outside the cabin in the “open fields.”
Visual surveillance from public places along [the] route or adjoining Knotts’ premises would have sufficed to reveal all of these facts to the police.
Id. (citation omitted). The Knotts Court specifically noted that “nothing in [the] record indicates that the beeper signal was received or relied upon after it had indicated that the drum … had ended its automotive journey to rest on [defendant]’s premises.” Id. at 284-85. Similarly, “there [was] no indication that the beeper was used in any way to reveal information as to the movement of the drum within the [premises], or in any way that would not have been visible to the naked eye from outside the cabin.” Id. at 285. Thus, the Court concluded, the Fourth Amendment was not implicated. Id.
¶10 In contrast, a year later in Karo, the Court concluded that when police used a similar beeper planted in a similar container to determine how long the container remained at certain locations and to reveal the specific location of the container within a storage facility, a Fourth Amendment search occurred. See Karo, 468 U.S. at 708-10, 717-18 & n.5. The Karo Court explained that the government used the device to obtain “information that it could not have obtained by observation from outside the curtilage of the house.” See id. at 715-16.
¶11 Knotts and Karo teach that, to the extent a tracking device reveals vehicle travel information visible to the general public, and thus obtainable by warrantless visual surveillance, the use of the device does not normally implicate Fourth Amendment protections. It follows that no Fourth Amendment violation occurred here simply because the police used a GPS device to obtain information about Sveum’s car that was visible to the general public.
¶12 We also agree with the State that the police action of attaching the GPS device to Sveum’s car, either by itself or in combination with subsequent tracking, does not constitute a search or seizure.[4] The State aptly relies on United States v. Garcia, 474 F.3d 994 (7th Cir. 2007).
¶13 The Garcia court concluded that attaching a GPS device to a car while the car was in a public place did not convert the subsequent tracking into a Fourth Amendment search. See id. at 996-98. The court reasoned:
[I]f police follow a car around, or observe its route by means of cameras mounted on lampposts or of satellite imaging as in Google Earth, there is no search. Well, but the tracking in this case was by satellite. Instead of transmitting images, the satellite transmitted geophysical coordinates. The only difference is that in the imaging case nothing touches the vehicle, while in the case at hand the tracking device does. But it is a distinction without any practical difference.
Id. at 997. Like the Seventh Circuit, we discern no privacy interest protected by the Fourth Amendment that is invaded when police attach a GPS device to the outside of a vehicle, as long as the information obtained is the same as could be gained by the use of other techniques that do not require a warrant.
¶14 Sveum might respond that, unlike Garcia, the police here did not attach the GPS device while his car was parked in a public place. However, the circuit court concluded that Sveum’s driveway was not constitutionally protected “curtilage,” and Sveum does not challenge this ruling or otherwise present a developed argument as to why the police engaged in a search or seizure by entering his driveway.
¶15 Accordingly, we follow Garcia’s lead and conclude that the attachment of a GPS device to Sveum’s car does not change our view that, under Knotts and Karo, no Fourth Amendment search or seizure occurred here.
¶16 Sveum argues that all of the tracking information should be suppressed because the GPS device monitored the location of his car when it was out of public view. We reject this argument for two reasons.
¶17 First, although the police presumably obtained location information while Sveum’s car was inside areas not open to surveillance, there is no indication that this same information could not have been obtained by visual surveillance from outside these enclosures. Such surveillance could have told the police when Sveum’s car entered or exited his garage and the garage at his workplace and, therefore, informed them when his car remained in those places. Sveum does not argue that the police used the GPS device to track his car’s movements within the enclosures.
¶18 Second, even if the police had obtained some information about the movement of Sveum’s car within the enclosures and this information should have been suppressed, Sveum suggests no reason why all of the tracking information should be suppressed. Although we need not exhaustively analyze this issue, we note that properly obtained evidence is generally not excluded simply because a search is illegally extended to improperly obtain evidence. See State v. Noll, 116 Wis. 2d 443, 454-55, 343 N.W.2d 391 (1984) (“Insofar as the searcher exceeds the scope of the validly authorized search, items so seized must be suppressed. However, as to those items discovered in the lawful execution of the valid part of the warrant, the Fourth Amendment does not require suppression.”). Similarly, properly obtained and incriminating wiretap information is not suppressed solely because police also overhear unrelated private conversations that they would otherwise have no right to overhear.[5] It is not apparent why a balancing of interests should not produce the same rule when applied to the GPS tracking situation here.
¶19 Accordingly, we conclude that no Fourth Amendment search or seizure occurs when police attach a GPS device to the outside of a vehicle while it is in a place accessible to the public and then use that device to track the vehicle while it is in public view. Because this case does not involve tracking information on the movement of Sveum’s car within a place protected by the Fourth Amendment, it follows that the circuit court correctly rejected Sveum’s Fourth Amendment suppression argument.
¶20 We are more than a little troubled by the conclusion that no Fourth Amendment search or seizure occurs when police use a GPS or similar device as they have here. So far as we can tell, existing law does not limit the government’s use of tracking devices to investigations of legitimate criminal suspects. If there is no Fourth Amendment search or seizure, police are seemingly free to secretly track anyone’s public movements with a GPS device. As the Seventh Circuit observed:
The new technologies enable, as the old (because of expense) do not, wholesale surveillance. One can imagine the police affixing GPS tracking devices to thousands of cars at random, recovering the devices, and using digital search techniques to identify suspicious driving patterns. One can even imagine a law requiring all new cars to come equipped with the device so that the government can keep track of all vehicular movement in the United States….
….
Technological progress poses a threat to privacy by enabling an extent of surveillance that in earlier times would have been prohibitively expensive.
Garcia, 474 F.3d at 998.
¶21 We are also concerned about the private use of GPS surveillance devices. As the Seventh Circuit and a recent New York Times article indicate, GPS technology is available at low cost to the general public. See Garcia, 474 F.3d at 995; David Pogue, Peekaboo, Zoombak Sees You, N.Y. TIMES, Apr. 23, 2009, at B1, B8. Although there are obviously legitimate private uses, such as a trucking company monitoring the location of its trucks, there are also many private uses that most reasonable people would agree should be prohibited.[6]
¶22 Consequently, we urge the legislature to explore imposing limitations on the use of GPS and similar devices by both government and private actors. Such limitations would appear to be consistent with limitations the legislature has placed on electronic intercepts of communications. See Wisconsin’s Electronic Surveillance Control Law, WIS. STAT. §§ 968.27-.33 (2007-08).[7]
B. Suppression Of GPS Evidence Under Electronic Surveillance Control Law
¶23 As we have seen, the GPS device used here recorded location information that was downloaded from the device after it was retrieved from Sveum’s car. The device did not emit a signal permitting the police to contemporaneously track Sveum’s car. It is this aspect of the GPS device that prompts Sveum to challenge its use under Wisconsin’s Electronic Surveillance Control Law, WIS. STAT. §§ 968.27-.33.
¶24 The Electronic Surveillance Control Law governs the lawfulness and uses of intercepts of “wire, electronic or oral communications.” See WIS. STAT. §§ 968.28-.31. The law governs the in-court disclosure of the contents of intercepts of “electronic communications.” See WIS. STAT. § 968.29; State v. Gilmore, 201 Wis. 2d 820, 825, 549 N.W.2d 401 (1996) (“Wisconsin Stat. § 968.29 states the conditions under which disclosure is authorized.”).
¶25 Sveum argues that the GPS evidence here was obtained from “electronic communication[s]” covered by the Electronic Surveillance Control Law and should have been suppressed because of noncompliance with several provisions in the law. The threshold question is whether the GPS device used to track Sveum’s car produced covered electronic communications or, instead, is excluded from the law’s coverage because it is a “tracking device” under WIS. STAT. § 968.27(4)(d). This threshold question involves the application of a statute to undisputed facts, a question of law that we review de novo. State v. Wilke, 152 Wis. 2d 243, 247, 448 N.W.2d 13 (Ct. App. 1989). We give statutory language its common, ordinary, and accepted meaning, except that technical or specially defined words or phrases are given their technical or special definitional meaning. State ex rel. Kalal v. Circuit Court for Dane County, 2004 WI 58, ¶45, 271 Wis. 2d 633, 681 N.W.2d 110. Also, we must construe statutes to avoid absurd or unreasonable results. Id., ¶46.
¶26 As Sveum acknowledges, the Electronic Surveillance Control Law expressly excludes from the definition of “electronic communication” those communications from tracking devices. WISCONSIN STAT. § 968.27(4)(d) provides, in pertinent part:
“Electronic communication” does not include any of the following:
....
(d) Any communication from a tracking device.
“[T]racking device” is not defined in the statute, but we agree with the State that the GPS device here is such a device because, so far as the record discloses, its sole function was to track the location of Sveum’s car.
¶27 Our Electronic Surveillance Control Law is modeled on a federal act, and Sveum asserts that the “statutory history” of the federal act defines a tracking device as a communication device that “emits a signal” that can be received by special tracking equipment to trace location. Sveum argues that the GPS device here is not a “tracking device” because it does not emit any signal. Rather, it receives signals and stores data that can be retrieved later. We are not persuaded.
¶28 Sveum provides only a record citation for his “statutory history” argument, and it leaves unclear what legal authority he is relying on. Our research, based on the limited information referenced in the record, suggests that Sveum is relying on a Senate Report that accompanied the 1986 update to the federal act. The Report includes a preliminary “glossary,” which defines “electronic tracking devices (transponders)” as Sveum’s argument indicates. See S. REP. NO. 99-541, at *10 (1986). Sveum’s reliance on this Senate Report, however, runs headlong into the express language of the enacted federal law, which broadly defines a “tracking device” as “an electronic or mechanical device which permits the tracking of the movement of a person or object.” See 18 U.S.C.S. § 2510(12)(D) (incorporating the definition in 18 U.S.C.S. § 3117). Indeed, the Senate Report, in its “section-by-section” analysis of the act, references the same definition that appears in the enacted statutes. See S. REP. NO. 99-541, at *33-34. Sveum does not explain why the “glossary” definition in the Senate Report should control over this plain-language statutory definition, which obviously covers the GPS device used here. Regardless whether it emitted a signal, the GPS device enabled the police to track, after the fact, the movements of Sveum’s car.
¶29 Sveum also points out that the tracking device exception in our Electronic Surveillance Control Law refers to “[a]ny communication from a tracking device.” WIS. STAT. § 968.27(4)(d) (emphasis added). He argues that this phrasing shows that the exception applies only to devices that emit some sort of signal, not to a device like a GPS device that only receives and records data for access at a later time. Sveum’s argument, however, erroneously assumes that the communication “from” the device must be simultaneous with the tracked movement. But the statutory language imposes no such requirement. Although obtained later, the information did indeed come “from” the tracking device.
¶30 Moreover, the distinction Sveum suggests is not reasonable. It is not rational to limit the admission of tracking information based on whether it is obtained in real time by a signal or at a later time by direct access to the device. Thus, Sveum’s interpretation of the statute would lead to unreasonable results.
C. Search Warrant For Sveum’s Residence And Car
¶31 Sveum divides his challenge to the search warrant for his residence and his car into two categories. First, he argues that the warrant application lacked probable cause. Second, he argues that the warrant did not describe the items to be seized with sufficient particularity. We address each in turn.
1. Probable Cause
¶32 Our duty on review is limited to ensuring that the warrant-issuing judge had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed. State v. DeSmidt, 155 Wis. 2d 119, 133, 454 N.W.2d 780 (1990). We accord great deference to the judge’s probable cause determination; that determination will stand unless the defendant establishes that the facts are clearly insufficient to support a finding of probable cause. State v. Higginbotham, 162 Wis. 2d 978, 989, 471 N.W.2d 24 (1991).
¶33 Sveum argues that there was insufficient probable cause for the warrant to authorize seizure of the following items: journals, calendars, logs documenting travel or appointments, binoculars, flashlights, ski masks, documents mentioning Johnson and certain other individuals, and personal information related to Johnson or her family.
¶34 Sveum concedes that the warrant affidavit established that he used or kept many such items in connection with his 1996 stalking conviction, but asserts that the application did not provide probable cause to believe that he was keeping such items in 2003.[8] We disagree.
¶35 The warrant affidavit stated that the affiant was a detective with twenty-two years of experience who had specialized training in stalking crimes. See State v. Multaler, 2002 WI 35, ¶43, 252 Wis. 2d 54, 643 N.W.2d 437 (experience and special knowledge of police officers who are applying for search warrant are facts that warrant-issuing judge may consider). The detective explained in the affidavit that, based on her training and experience, individuals who engage in stalking behavior often display an obsessive personality and exhibit a pattern of conduct, including maintaining visual proximity to the victim, contacting the victim, and keeping records, journals, or other documents memorializing their stalking behavior. Also, such individuals often keep evidence of their obsession with the victim, including records, journals, diaries, calendars of the victim’s activities or the activities of other family members, personal information, or computer records.
¶36 The affidavit also indicated that the affiant had investigated Sveum’s prior stalking crime, and it detailed the many ways that Sveum’s conduct surrounding the 1996 conviction was consistent with behaviors characteristically exhibited by individuals who stalk. In particular, Sveum at that time kept calendars marking down anniversary dates of his time with Johnson, tracked the mileage on Johnson’s car, documented Johnson’s whereabouts, and retained “keepsakes,” including earrings, underwear, and a duplicate driver’s license of Johnson’s. The affidavit also outlined the evidence establishing that Sveum was again stalking Johnson in 2003.
¶37 When we consider all of the information in the warrant affidavit, we conclude that the affidavit established probable cause to believe that the items enumerated could be evidence of Sveum’s 2003 stalking crime.
¶38 Sveum argues that the warrant should not have allowed police to seize computer equipment because the warrant affidavit lacked specific facts to show that a computer may have contained evidence of stalking. He asserts that nothing in the affidavit shows that he used a computer in the 1996 stalking. We are not persuaded. It is readily inferable from the warrant affidavit that Sveum’s past stalking conduct involved obsessively detailed logging, calendaring, and tracking of information relating to Johnson. Given this inference, along with the increasing prevalence of computerized information and personal computing between 1996 and 2003, the warrant-issuing judge could have reasonably inferred that Sveum may have been using a computer in connection with stalking Johnson in 2003 even if he had not used a computer to stalk Johnson in 1996. See State v. Benoit, 83 Wis. 2d 389, 399, 265 N.W.2d 298 (1978) (warrant judge may draw reasonable inferences from the evidence presented in the affidavit).
2. Particularity
¶39 Sveum argues that the warrant failed to describe the items sought with sufficient particularity. Under the Fourth Amendment, a warrant must “particularly describ[e] the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” Our supreme court has recognized that, in practice, this means that a warrant should describe items to be seized “with as much particularity and specificity as the circumstances and the nature of activity under investigation permit[].” See State v. Petrone, 161 Wis. 2d 530, 541, 468 N.W.2d 676 (1991).
¶40 Sveum’s particularity argument is that the many items authorized for seizure were so “non-specific” that the warrant was an invalid general warrant. Police were authorized to seize phone bills, journals, calendars, logs, computers and devices related to computers, cameras and film, binoculars, flashlights, ski masks, audio and/or video recording equipment in any format, and evidence that might identify the residents of the searched dwelling. Sveum also argues that the warrant lacked probable cause to seize some of the types of items identified in the warrant because he and his mother occupied the residence and the warrant lacked objective standards by which the executing officers could differentiate items his mother owned. We reject Sveum’s arguments. We perceive no reason, at least in this case, why guidelines would have been helpful or necessary. Tellingly, Sveum does not suggest what sorts of ownership guidelines would have been required to satisfy his view of the particularity requirement. We conclude that the warrant described the items to be seized with as much particularity and specificity as the circumstances and the nature of Sveum’s alleged stalking activity permitted.
¶41 Furthermore, the two cases on which Sveum places primary reliance actually cut against him. In People v. Prall, 145 N.E. 610 (Ill. 1924), the authorities could have, but did not, describe the stolen property sought with precision by reference to serial numbers. See id. at 612. No similar identifying information could have assisted in limiting the seizures here.
¶42 Sveum’s reliance on United States v. Klein, 565 F.2d 183 (1st Cir. 1977), is similarly misplaced. Klein involved whether the description, “pirate reproduction,” sufficiently informed the officers executing a warrant how to distinguish between pirated and non-pirated merchandise. See id. at 184-87. But that case makes plain the court’s view that differentiating between the two types of merchandise was a technical endeavor based on criteria that would not generally have been known to the police officers executing the warrant. See id. at 186 & n.5, 188-89.[9]
D. Evidence Of Prior Stalking Conviction
¶43 Sveum was convicted of aggravated stalking based on his 1996 stalking conviction. Proof of this particular aggravated stalking crime requires proof of a previous conviction for a violent crime or a stalking crime involving the same victim pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 940.32(3)(b). Sveum argues that the circuit court erred by admitting evidence of his prior stalking conviction after he had agreed to stipulate to the conviction. The legal basis for Sveum’s argument is difficult to discern, but he relies on State v. Alexander, 214 Wis. 2d 628, 571 N.W.2d 662 (1997), a case holding that a defendant’s prior drunk driving convictions should not have gone to the jury, even though proof of the prior convictions was necessary to prove the drunk driving charge at issue in that case. Whatever persuasive value Alexander may have had in a stalking case was put to rest in State v. Warbelton, 2009 WI 6, ¶40, __ Wis. 2d __, 759 N.W.2d 557. In Warbelton, also a stalking case, the court expressly declined to apply Alexander and held that Alexander applies only to drunk driving prosecutions. Warbelton, 2009 WI 6, ¶¶3, 46, 61. We are bound by Warbelton.
E. Ineffective Assistance Of Trial Counsel
¶44 Sveum argues that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel in several respects. The two-pronged deficient performance/prejudice test we apply to such claims is well established and we do not repeat it in further detail here. We address each of Sveum’s ineffective assistance claims in the sections that follow.
1. Jury Selection
¶45 Sveum argues that counsel was ineffective during jury selection by failing to ask potential jurors whether knowledge of Sveum’s prior conviction for stalking Johnson would prevent them from being fair and impartial. It appears that Sveum has not demonstrated either deficient performance or prejudice, but we will limit our discussion to his failure to show prejudice.
¶46 Sveum’s prejudice argument consists only of the speculative assertion that “due to counsel’s deficiency, there is no assurance that Sveum’s … right to an impartial jury was honored” (emphasis added). In the face of the same argument in the context of a sexual assault charge, we explained that the defendant “needed to show that if his trial counsel had asked more or better questions, those questions would have resulted in the discovery of bias on the part of at least one of the jurors who actually decided his case.” State v. Koller, 2001 WI App 253, ¶¶11-16, 248 Wis. 2d 259, 635 N.W.2d 838. As in Koller, Sveum makes no such showing.
2. Evidence Of Pending Appeal
¶47 At the time of Sveum’s trial in this case in 2006, an appeal from a denial of a writ of habeas corpus attacking his 1996 conviction was pending. Sveum points to language in WIS. STAT. § 906.09(5) (2005-06), which provides that “[e]vidence of the pendency of an appeal is admissible,” and argues that his trial counsel was ineffective because counsel failed to introduce evidence of his pending appeal.
¶48 The State responds that, because the pending appeal was not a direct appeal but a collateral challenge after Sveum’s direct appeal failed, the pending appeal was not an “appeal” within the meaning of WIS. STAT. § 906.09(5) (2005-06). We need not address this argument because, regardless of the proper interpretation of the statute, Sveum has not demonstrated deficient performance or prejudice. We agree with the State’s alternative argument that it would have been a reasonable strategic choice by counsel not to introduce evidence of the pending challenge to Sveum’s 1996 conviction because the prosecutor would have countered with damaging proof that Sveum’s direct appeal from the 1996 conviction had failed.
3. Cross-Examination Of The Alleged Stalking Victim
¶49 At trial, Johnson, the stalking victim, provided strong testimony against Sveum, such as her assertion that, during one encounter in 1994, Sveum grabbed her and told her that one day when she came home he would be hiding in the bushes and would blow her head off. Sveum argues that it was, therefore, critical to impeach Johnson’s credibility and that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance when counsel failed to use information Sveum provided to cross-examine Johnson. For example, Sveum says he advised his counsel about police reports proving that Johnson had voluntary contacts with him after the alleged threat, and that counsel failed to use this information to impeach Johnson.
¶50 We have examined each cross-examination failure Sveum alleges, and conclude that he has failed to show ineffective assistance. For example, we agree that if Johnson had voluntary contact with Sveum after the alleged death threat, such contact might lead a jury to think it less likely that the threat occurred. Sveum cites State v. Thiel, 2003 WI 111, ¶64, 264 Wis. 2d 571, 665 N.W.2d 305, to support this common-sense observation. But, just as the Thiel court concluded that the failure to use such information to impeach the victim, standing alone, did not undermine the court’s confidence in the outcome, see id., ¶81, we similarly conclude that the failure does not undermine our confidence in the jury’s verdict here.
¶51 We agree with the circuit court that, given the long history of Sveum’s stalking conduct toward Johnson, attempts to impeach Johnson as Sveum suggests could easily have backfired. Moreover, much of the information Sveum relies on could have been readily explainable, and none of it would have been likely to have destroyed Johnson’s credibility or made her seem less credible than Sveum. Sveum chose not to testify and, even assuming he had, it strains credulity to think the jury would have found him more credible than Johnson. The evidence at trial, which included Sveum’s sister’s testimony and correspondence between Sveum and his sister, showed that Sveum was highly deceptive and manipulative. Accordingly, Sveum has not shown deficient performance or prejudice based on counsel’s failure to cross-examine Johnson with the information identified.
4. Failure To Object During Sveum’s Sister’s Testimony
¶52 Under cross-examination, Sveum’s counsel elicited testimony from Sveum’s sister, Renee, that she knew Sveum well and would not have helped Sveum if she thought he would harm Johnson. On redirect, the State asked Renee if she knew that Sveum had threatened to blow Johnson’s head off, and Renee replied, “no.” Sveum argues that, because Renee was the first witness to testify and Johnson had not yet testified about Sveum’s threat, counsel was ineffective by failing to object for lack of foundation. This argument is meritless. Although it appears to be true that the question lacked a foundation when asked because Johnson had yet to testify, we agree with the State that the same question could have been posed to Sveum’s sister either by recalling her after Johnson testified or by permitting the question in hypothetical form because it was known that Johnson would testify about the death threat.
5. Failure To Request Limiting Instruction On Other Acts Evidence
¶53 The prosecutor presented evidence of Sveum’s 1996 conviction for stalking Johnson and Sveum’s behavior underlying that conviction. This evidence included Johnson’s testimony that, among other things, Sveum went into Johnson’s car and removed items, had a key made when Johnson got a different car, and left phone messages saying that Johnson would “be sorry” if she did not pick up the phone. Sveum asserts that this was “other acts” evidence and that his counsel should have requested a limiting instruction explaining to the jury that this evidence could not be used to infer that he had a propensity to commit this type of crime.
¶54 Sveum does not explain why a limiting instruction would likely have made a difference in the verdict in light of the types of concerns associated with other acts evidence. Rather, his argument seems to be that counsel’s failure to request a limiting instruction was per se deficient performance and resulted in per se prejudice. We disagree.
¶55 WISCONSIN STAT. § 901.06 (2005-06) provides: “When evidence which is admissible as to one party or for one purpose but not admissible as to another party or for another purpose is admitted, the judge, upon request, shall restrict the evidence to its proper scope and instruct the jury accordingly.” Thus, this statute requires an instruction when one is requested. The logical corollary is that an instruction is not required every time evidence is admitted for one purpose, but is not admissible for another, and, therefore, it is not per se deficient performance to fail to request an instruction.
¶56 Sveum also asserts that counsel’s failure to request a limiting instruction implicates double jeopardy, the statute of limitations, due process, and equal protection. We agree with the State that these arguments are insufficiently developed and, therefore, address them no further. See State v. Pettit, 171 Wis. 2d 627, 646-47, 492 N.W.2d 633 (Ct. App. 1992) (we need not consider arguments that are inadequately briefed).
F. Erroneous Jury Instruction
¶57 The parties agree that the jury instruction on one element of stalking, under WIS. STAT. § 940.32(3), was partially incorrect. Specifically, as to the “course of conduct” element, the jury was instructed that the acts constituting a “course of conduct” are limited to:
1) “maintaining visual or physical proximity to Jamie Johnson,” or
2) “contacting Jamie Johnson by telephone or causing Jamie Johnson’s telephone or any other person’s telephone to ring repeatedly or continuously regardless of whether a conversation ensues,” or
3) “causing any person to engage in either of the acts described [above].”
The causing-any-person part of this instruction was incorrect because of its reference to the two acts described in items 1) and 2). The “causing any person” alternative did not, at the relevant time, include causing these two acts. See § 940.32(1)(a) (2001-02). Thus, the jury was erroneously told that the “course of conduct” element could be met if Sveum caused his sister Renee to engage in either of these acts.[10]
¶58 Sveum correctly argues that this type of instructional error was cause for reversal in United States Supreme Court cases as recent as Boyde v. California, 494 U.S. 370 (1990). Since Boyde, however, the Court has concluded that harmless error analysis applies to such error. Hedgpeth v. Pulido, 129 S. Ct. 530, 532 (2008). We agree with the State that the error here was harmless.
¶59 For purposes of our harmless error discussion, we will assume without deciding that Sveum is correct that the proper harmless error test is the one set forth in State v. Dyess, 124 Wis. 2d 525, 370 N.W.2d 222 (1985). Under Dyess, the State must establish that there is “no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the conviction.” Id. at 543. Sveum argues that the test is not met here because it is impossible to know whether one or more of the jurors voted to convict him relying solely on evidence that he caused his sister to engage in stalking conduct. We are confident that did not occur.
¶60 The jury heard evidence that Sveum’s sister maintained proximity to Johnson or made prohibited phone contacts to Johnson at Sveum’s behest while he was in prison. But the jury also heard essentially uncontested evidence that, soon after Sveum was released from electronic monitoring, he began making hang-up calls to Johnson, often immediately after she arrived home. This evidence demonstrated not only that Sveum was engaging in prohibited phone contacts, but that he was also maintaining visual or physical proximity to Johnson on a recurring basis. Moreover, with exceptions not relevant here, Sveum’s trial counsel did not attempt to persuade the jury that Sveum did not engage in the conduct alleged after he was released from prison. Rather, counsel disputed other elements. Counsel candidly stated in closing argument: “[Y]ou’re asked to take a course of conduct which obviously is present and still decide if what happened here is stalking.” (Emphasis added.) Counsel continued: “The course of conduct is present but you’re being asked to decide if the other elements of the crime are also present ….”
¶61 We perceive no reason why any juror would have rejected evidence of Sveum’s post-incarceration behavior and relied instead only on his sister’s conduct. Accordingly, we conclude that the instructional error was harmless.[11]
Conclusion
¶62 For all of the reasons stated above, we affirm the judgment of conviction and the order denying postconviction relief.
By the Court.—Judgment and order affirmed.
[1] The warrant application suggests that there may have been some question as to which of two residences was Sveum’s primary residence. That question is not important for purposes here, and we will generally refer to Sveum’s residence without specifying which residence we mean.
[2] All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2001-02 version unless otherwise noted. The stalking statute under which Sveum was charged provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
(1) In this section:
(a) “Course of conduct” means a series of 2 or more acts carried out over time, however short or long, that show a continuity of purpose, including any of the following:
1. Maintaining a visual or physical proximity to the victim.
….
6. Contacting the victim by telephone or causing the victim’s telephone or any other person’s telephone to ring repeatedly or continuously, regardless of whether a conversation ensues.
….
(2) Whoever meets all of the following criteria is guilty of a Class I felony:
(a) The actor intentionally engages in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that would cause a reasonable person under the same circumstances to fear bodily injury to or the death of himself or herself or a member of his or her family or household.
(b) The actor intends that at least one of the acts that constitute the course of conduct will place the specific person in reasonable fear of bodily injury to or the death of himself or herself or a member of his or her family or household.
(c) The actor’s acts induce fear in the specific person of bodily injury to or the death of himself or herself or a member of his or her family or household.
….
(3) Whoever violates sub. (2) is guilty of a Class F felony if any of the following applies:
….
(b) The actor has … a previous conviction under this section …, the victim of that crime is the victim of the present violation of sub. (2), and the present violation occurs within 7 years after the prior conviction.
WIS. STAT. § 940.32.
[3] Whether the court order that authorized police use of the GPS device here can technically be considered a warrant is unclear, but resolving this question is not important for purposes of our decision.
[4] In United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (1983), the Supreme Court did not address the issue because the defendant there believed he lacked standing to challenge the placement of the “beeper.” Id. at 279 n.*.
[5] We are aware of no constitutional rule that requires suppression of incriminating conversations obtained by an authorized wiretap solely because the wiretap also captures private conversations in which the government has no legitimate interest and could not otherwise intercept. We note, however, that federal and Wisconsin law require that authorities “minimize” the interception of the latter category of conversations. See Scott v. United States, 436 U.S. 128, 140 (1978) (“[18 U.S.C. § 2518(5)] does not forbid the interception of all nonrelevant conversations, but rather instructs the agents to conduct the surveillance in such a manner as to ‘minimize’ the interception of such conversations.”); WIS. STAT. § 968.30(5) (2007-08) (Wisconsin’s counterpart to the federal minimization statute).
[6] In the stalking context, the “course of conduct” element can now be satisfied with evidence that a defendant used “electronic means” to monitor or record the activities of the victim. WIS. STAT. § 940.32(1)(a)6m. (2007-08). But that conduct alone is not prohibited. There must also be proof, among other elements, that the course of conduct would cause a reasonable person to suffer emotional distress or fear harm. WIS. STAT. § 940.32(2) (2007-08). Thus, using a GPS device to secretly monitor someone, without more, is not prohibited by the stalking statute.
[7] All references to Wisconsin’s Electronic Surveillance Control Law, WIS. STAT. §§ 968.27-.33, are to the 2007-08 version.
[8] The complaint states that Sveum’s 2003 charge for stalking covered conduct from 1999 through 2003 but, for ease of discussion, we refer to Sveum’s conduct only by reference to 2003.
[9] Sveum also argues that the officers exceeded the scope of the warrant when they seized financial documents. Sveum does not, however, indicate what types of financial documents he is talking about or explain why such documents fell outside the scope of the warrant. Accordingly, we consider this argument no further. See State v. Pettit, 171 Wis. 2d 627, 646-47, 492 N.W.2d 633 (Ct. App. 1992) (we need not consider arguments that are inadequately briefed).
[10] In a subsequent version of the statute, the causing-any-person alternative applies to all of the other types of acts listed, including the two listed in Sveum’s jury instruction. See WIS. STAT. § 940.32(1)(a) (2003-04).
[11] We note that, consistent with Sveum’s charge, the jury was given the party-to-a-crime instruction. Sveum argues that this instruction “compounded” the error because applying the party-to-a-crime statute to the stalking statute would render WIS. STAT. § 940.32(1)(a)10. superfluous. Sveum does not develop this argument until his reply brief, and even then he does not address case law setting forth the standards for determining whether the party-to-a-crime statute applies. See, e.g., State v. Tronca, 84 Wis. 2d 68, 84-85, 267 N.W.2d 216 (1978); State v. Curbello-Rodriguez, 119 Wis. 2d 414, 432-33, 351 N.W.2d 758 (Ct. App. 1984). Accordingly, we decline to address this topic further. See Pettit, 171 Wis. 2d at 646-47.
Special thank you to Rhonda Martinson with the Battered Women's Justice Project for this information.
Survivors In Action
"No Victim Left Behind"
El Dorado Hills woman, 99, recalls years as pilot - Sacramento Recreation and Places to Visit - Sacramento, Gold Country, Lake Tahoe, San Francisco | Sacramento Bee
SIA sponsor Town Center Realty's CEO Jacob Gabrie is El Dorado Hills Real Estate Examiner
Jacob J. Gabrie, CEO of Town Center Realty full service realty firm and GM of The El Dorado Hills Town Center is theEl Dorado Hills Real Estate Examiner.
Be sure to check out Jacob's examiner pages for the latest industry news as well as real estate news in the El Dorado Hills, California area.
Special thank you to Jacob and Town Center Realty for their support of Survivors In Action and our mission, "No Victim Left Behind".
Survivors In Action
"No Victim Left Behind"
Be sure to check out Jacob's examiner pages for the latest industry news as well as real estate news in the El Dorado Hills, California area.
Special thank you to Jacob and Town Center Realty for their support of Survivors In Action and our mission, "No Victim Left Behind".
Survivors In Action
"No Victim Left Behind"
Web counters great for marketing purposes and to help prevent cyber crime
Web counters are a bloggers best friend. I say this knowing that many of my readers ask me often, how to catch cyberstalkers "red handed" one way is by using a web counter. As a survivor of cyberstalking and traditional stalking I know far too well how easy it is to become prey for a cyberstalker on-line, however today there are tools that make it a bit easier. You can read about my story and cyberstalking within the 9 piece segment on the topic in about.com women's issues.
The majority of business professionals today face the inevitable challenge of wanting to attract an on-line following in order to compete at a higher level in the marketplace while still having some safe guards in place just in case cyber trouble starts- a web counter can do this very easily.
One way bloggers and web hosts can manager their cyber safety a bit easier is by the use of a web counter. There are many free web counters out there. Easy Counter, Stat Counter, Digits, Pax there are literally hundreds of these that help track blog traffic including the entry and exit points, comments left, city and state of entry, IP address and duration.
Web counters a free tool that will help you discover valuable marketing information that is vital for business success today and also help to track and record the actions of stalkers and cyberstalkers.
If you would like to learn more about on-line safety and how to prevent cyber bullying, cyberstalking and identity theft visit Survivors In Action
"No Victim Left Behind"
Monday, November 2, 2009
Survivors In Action, "No Victim Left Behind" over three thousand volunteers in the U.S. and abroad, thank you for your support!
What is Survivors In Action?
Survivors In Action (SIA) is a non-profit national advocacy group that supports victims and the families of victims of any crime, including domestic violence, identity theft, elder abuse, cyber-stalking, stalking, child abuse, rape, and sexual assault. Other national organizations typically help victims at specific points in their victimization cycle—such as when they first report the crime or in writing parole opposition letters—leaving “gaps” in needed services. SIA is the only organization that fills the gaps, providing support through all stages of the journey from victim to survivor, with no time limitations, cut-off dates, or conditions. Our mission is to ensure that no victim anywhere in the nation is left behind.
Survivors In Action
"No Victim Left Behind"
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Volunteer today with Survivors In Action so "No Victim is Left Behind"
You can make a powerful difference for crime victims! Survivors In Action is seeking volunteers of all ages to help with projects! Need no experience to apply!
Visit Survivors In Action's page on Volunteer Match to learn how you can help so that "No victim is left behind"!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
