The Wisconsin Court of Appeals recently reversed a lower court's decision that suppressed evidence obtained from a cell phone in the case of State v. Ranken E. AhToong, docket number 2025AP000112-CR. The ruling affects how law enforcement can access information from cell phones and clarifies what constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment.

This case began when Ranken AhToong was charged with attempting to flee from an officer and obstructing an officer. After a police chase, AhToong abandoned his pickup truck and fled into the woods, leaving behind a cell phone. Officers found the phone and, after confirming it was on, one officer pressed the SOS button to call 911 and obtain the phone number associated with it. AhToong argued that this action constituted an unlawful search, as the officer did not have a warrant.

The circuit court initially sided with AhToong, ruling that the officer's actions did indeed constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment. This led to the suppression of the cell phone number and all evidence derived from it. The State of Wisconsin appealed the decision, arguing that the officer's actions did not constitute a search.

In its ruling, the Court of Appeals, led by Judge Nashold, determined that the officer's pressing of the SOS button and calling 911 did not amount to a search. The court stated, "We conclude that the officer’s actions did not constitute a Fourth Amendment ‘search.’" The court explained that the officer was lawfully in possession of the phone and that merely pressing the SOS button to call 911 did not intrude upon a constitutionally protected area.

The court's decision hinged on two main legal principles regarding what constitutes a search. First, it examined whether there was a physical intrusion or trespass, and second, whether the officer violated a reasonable expectation of privacy. The court found that no physical trespass occurred, as the officer did not attach anything to the phone or access its contents. Furthermore, the court ruled that AhToong did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the phone number itself, as it is identifying information that is typically not protected under the Fourth Amendment.

This ruling is significant because it clarifies how courts may interpret the Fourth Amendment concerning cell phone searches. It emphasizes that obtaining a phone number through emergency features does not equate to accessing personal data stored on the device. The court referenced previous rulings, including the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Riley v. California, which established that a warrant is generally required to search the contents of a cell phone.

The implications of this ruling extend beyond this case, as it sets a precedent for how law enforcement can interact with cell phones during investigations. It may influence future cases involving the use of emergency features on phones and the extent to which individuals can expect privacy regarding identifying information.

Looking ahead, it is possible that AhToong may seek further legal recourse, including a petition for review by the Wisconsin Supreme Court. However, details on any potential appeals were not available in the court filing. This case highlights the ongoing legal debates surrounding privacy rights and law enforcement’s access to technology in the digital age.