The Wisconsin Court of Appeals has reversed a lower court's decision to suppress evidence in the case of State v. Ranken E. AhToong (2025AP000112-CR). The ruling, issued on November 5, 2026, allows the State to use evidence obtained from AhToong's cell phone in a criminal case where he is charged with attempting to flee or elude an officer and obstructing an officer. This decision is significant as it addresses the boundaries of the Fourth Amendment regarding searches and seizures of digital information.

AhToong, the defendant in this case, argued that law enforcement's actions constituted an unconstitutional search under the Fourth Amendment. The case arose after a police officer pressed the SOS button on AhToong's cell phone to call 911, which led to the officer receiving the phone number associated with the device. This number was later used to identify and locate AhToong for arrest. The court's ruling has implications for how law enforcement can interact with cell phones and what constitutes a search.

Background

Ranken E. AhToong is facing charges in Dane County, Wisconsin, for attempting to flee from law enforcement and obstructing an officer. The events leading to these charges began when Deputy Trent Schafer observed AhToong driving a pickup truck with one headlight and speeding away when the officer activated his emergency lights. After the driver fled into a wooded area, officers discovered a cell phone on the road near the abandoned truck.

Deputy Schafer, upon finding the phone, pressed the SOS button to call 911. He received the phone number assigned to the device from a dispatcher. AhToong's legal team argued that this action constituted a search that violated his Fourth Amendment rights since the officer did not have a warrant. The circuit court initially agreed with AhToong, leading to the State's appeal.

The Ruling

The Wisconsin Court of Appeals, in a decision authored by Judge Nashold, reversed the lower court's ruling. The court determined that the officer's actions did not constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment. The court stated, "We conclude that the officer’s actions did not constitute a Fourth Amendment ‘search.’" The judges emphasized that the officer was lawfully in possession of the phone and that pressing the SOS button to call 911 did not involve a physical intrusion or trespass into a constitutionally protected area.

The court further explained that the officer's actions did not violate AhToong's reasonable expectation of privacy. The judges noted that the SOS function is designed for emergency situations and can be used without unlocking the phone. The court referenced previous rulings, including the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Riley v. California, which established that searches of digital information on cell phones generally require a warrant. However, the court clarified that merely obtaining a phone number through a 911 call does not equate to accessing the phone's digital content.

Impact

This ruling is significant as it clarifies the legal boundaries regarding searches of cell phones by law enforcement. By determining that pressing the SOS button and calling 911 does not constitute a search, the court has set a precedent that could influence future cases involving the Fourth Amendment and digital privacy. The decision underscores the idea that individuals may not have a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding their phone numbers, especially when that information can be obtained through emergency services.

The ruling may also affect how law enforcement approaches similar situations in the future, potentially allowing officers to use emergency features on cell phones without the need for a warrant. This could lead to more cases where evidence obtained in this manner is admissible in court, impacting the rights of defendants in criminal proceedings.

What's Next

The State of Wisconsin may now proceed with its case against AhToong, utilizing the evidence obtained from his cell phone. Additionally, AhToong's legal team could seek further appeals to challenge the court's decision, but the current ruling stands as a significant legal precedent. There are no related cases pending that directly address this specific issue at this time.