Opinion ID: 6353417
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: ShotSpotter

Text: ¶4 This case involves a relatively new technology, ShotSpotter. At the suppression hearing, Officer Milone testified ShotSpotter is a gunshot location system. He explained it uses acoustic sensors to record sounds to try to locate . . . gunfire. More specifically, when the acoustic sensors pick-up the sounds of gunfire, [they] send[] an alert to an office in California. There is somebody standing by in the office who listens to the audio and . . . if it sounds like actual gunshots, they will send the alert[.]4 Nimmer has not argued the time that elapses between ShotSpotter detecting gunfire and notifying officers is sufficiently long to be a material fact. ¶5 Nimmer does not dispute ShotSpotter's reliability. Officer Milone testified at the suppression hearing, I [have] responded to . . . over a thousand [ShotSpotter reports]. . . . 4 Officer Milone indicated Milwaukee employs ShotSpotter at several locations: There is ShotSpotters in multiple cities. So we get dealings for all of Milwaukee including not just District Five, but all of Milwaukee. 3 No. 2020AP878-CR In my experience, [ShotSpotter] is pretty accurate. During oral argument before this court, when asked whether Nimmer was challenging the reliability of ShotSpotter, Nimmer's attorney responded: No, . . . we are not. . . . [T]he thing is I think it's pretty clear about ShotSpotter technology, is I think it can say when and where. I think now it's gotten to the point where it can say what. It can distinguish between firecrackers. I think that's pretty clear. I'm not disputing that. Despite ShotSpotter's reliability, Nimmer argues the officers lacked reasonable suspicion to believe he was involved in criminal activity.