The Wisconsin Supreme Court issued a decision January 14, 2026, in *State v. Gasper*, reviewing a lower court's suppression of digital evidence in a child pornography prosecution that raises questions about Fourth Amendment protections in the digital age.
Michael Joseph Gasper was charged with 10 counts of possessing child pornography and nine counts of child exploitation based on content found on his cell phone. The case originated when Snapchat's automated scanning system flagged a 16-second video as known child sexual abuse material using hash-based scanning technology.
The evidence trail began when Snapchat identified the flagged content through its platform scanning program and submitted a CyberTipline report to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. NCMEC then forwarded the report, which included the flagged video, to the Wisconsin Department of Justice. Notably, no person at either Snapchat or NCMEC actually viewed the video content during this process.
The constitutional issues arose when a DOJ employee became the first person to view the flagged video without obtaining a warrant. Subsequently, local law enforcement also viewed the video without a warrant before using it to obtain a search warrant for Gasper's cell phone. Gasper moved to suppress this evidence, arguing the warrantless viewing violated his Fourth Amendment rights.
The Waukesha County Circuit Court, presided over by Reserve Judge Shelley J. Gaylord, initially granted Gasper's motion to suppress the evidence. However, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals reversed that decision in *State v. Gasper* (2024 WI App 72), prompting the defendant to seek review by the state's highest court.
Justice Annette Kingsland Ziegler delivered the majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice Jill J. Karofsky and Justices Rebecca Grassl Bradley, Brian K. Hagedorn, and Janet C. Protasiewicz. The complex nature of the legal questions involved generated multiple separate opinions from the justices.
Justice Ziegler also filed a separate concurring opinion. Justice Rebecca Frank Dallet filed a concurring opinion, with Justice Susan M. Crawford joining portions of that opinion. Justice Hagedorn filed his own concurring opinion, joined by Chief Justice Karofsky and Justice Protasiewicz. Justice Crawford filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, with Justice Dallet joining portions of that opinion as well.
The case highlights the evolving intersection of technology and constitutional protections in criminal law. Social media platforms increasingly use automated scanning systems to detect illegal content, particularly child sexual abuse material, as part of their efforts to combat the spread of such material. These systems can flag content without human review by comparing digital fingerprints or hashes of files against databases of known illegal material.
The legal questions in *Gasper* center on when the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement applies to government viewing of this flagged content. The defendant argued that once the automated system flagged the material and government employees viewed it without a warrant, his constitutional rights were violated. The prosecution likely argued that the automated detection and subsequent viewing were reasonable under various Fourth Amendment exceptions.
The case also raises broader questions about the role of private companies in law enforcement investigations. Tech companies regularly scan user content and report suspected illegal material to authorities through systems like NCMEC's CyberTipline. Courts must balance the need to combat child exploitation with constitutional protections against unreasonable searches.
The timing of the decision, coming in early 2026, reflects the ongoing legal system's efforts to address how traditional Fourth Amendment principles apply to modern digital evidence gathering. As law enforcement increasingly relies on technology companies' automated detection systems, courts must determine what constitutional protections apply at each stage of the process.
The multiple opinions from Wisconsin Supreme Court justices suggest the complexity of balancing law enforcement needs against constitutional protections in digital evidence cases. While the specific holdings and reasoning of each opinion are not detailed in the available information, the variety of separate opinions indicates the justices may have reached the same result through different legal analyses.
The *Gasper* decision will likely influence how Wisconsin courts handle similar cases involving automated content scanning and warrantless government viewing of flagged material. The ruling may also provide guidance for law enforcement agencies on proper procedures for handling CyberTipline reports and when warrants are required.
As technology continues to evolve and automated scanning becomes more sophisticated, courts will face increasing pressure to clarify the constitutional boundaries around digital evidence gathering. The *Gasper* case represents one step in that ongoing judicial process of adapting Fourth Amendment protections to the digital age.