Federal appeals court upholds conviction in trafficking case

A federal appeals court has affirmed the conviction of a 38-year-old Rhinelander man serving a 25-year sentence for trafficking a child. In an 11-page opinion filed Aug. 1, the judges of the 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Chicago found that Oneida County Det. Sgt. Chad Wanta “acted recklessly” when he failed to correct inaccurate information included in an affidavit he filed in connection with a request for a search warrant to place a GPS tracker on Paul Osterman’s vehicle. However, the affidavit “established probable cause” for a court to issue the search warrant “even without the misstatements,” the court determined.

Osterman had argued “the fruits of the search” of his vehicle, which led to an indictment for sex trafficking a child, should be suppressed due to the officer’s conduct.

Writing for the three-judge panel, Judge Candace Jackson-Akiwumi summarized the case as follows:

“A detective in Oneida County, Wisconsin, applied for a warrant so he could place a GPS tracker on Paul Osterman’s truck. After monitoring the truck — a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment — authorities prosecuted Osterman for sex trafficking a child. Osterman later learned that some information the detective included in the affidavit seeking the warrant was incorrect. To Osterman, this meant the affidavit failed to establish probable cause for the search, so he asked the district court to suppress the fruits of the search. After an evidentiary hearing, the district court held that the affidavit established probable cause despite its inaccuracies. The court therefore denied Osterman’s motion to suppress, and Osterman appeals. We agree with Osterman that the detective acted recklessly when he failed to correct the affidavit. But we have taken an independent look at the affidavit, as we must, and we conclude that it establishes probable cause even without the misstatements.”

According to a statement issued by the U.S. Attorney’s Office following sentencing, “Osterman used social media applications and public wi-fi ‘hotspots’ to communicate with children, often requesting to exchange money for sexual acts. In July 2019, Osterman traveled from his home in Rhinelander to the south side of Chicago, where he lured a minor with whom he had been communicating online into his vehicle. He then engaged in sexual acts with the child in exchange for money. Further investigation revealed that Osterman attempted or performed sexual acts with several minors throughout Wisconsin, Illinois, and Minnesota.”     

In his appeal to the 7th District Court of Appeals, Osterman reiterated his argument that the search warrant to place the GPS device was illegally obtained due to the inaccuracies in the affidavit.

According to the defense, Wanta asserted — incorrectly — that Osterman had been communicating with the alleged victim on July 4, 2019 using an IP address of a Holiday Inn in Illinois. Also, the affidavit included a geographical error as to the location where a suspect had accessed a Wi-Fi hotspot.

Wanta discovered the geographical error after he submitted the affidavit the first time, but failed to fix the error despite having an opportunity to do so before each of the three times he renewed the warrant, according to court records.

Wanta began investigating after the sheriff’s office received eight CyberTips from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children relating to potential sexual exploitation of children through the MeetMe dating application.

The CyberTips further disclosed that all but one of the messages originated from MeetMe users who used wireless internet signals hosted by companies in Rhinelander. Specifically, two tips noted the user accessed publicly available wi-fi provided by a local fast-food restaurant. Three tips reported the user accessed public wi-fi offered by a local laundromat and two other tips explained the user accessed a private wi-fi network hosted by Northwoods Communications Technologies LLC (now “Northwoods Connect – High Speed Internet”), an internet provider then operated by Osterman.

Seven of the eight CyberTips involved similar usernames, sexual propositions, locations, and wi-fi access, according to court records. The eighth tip was different as it linked the suspect to a wi-fi hotspot not in Rhinelander, but in Hillside, Ill.

Ultimately, the court ruled the inaccurate information could be removed from the affidavit and a court could still find there was still sufficient evidence to reach the bar of probable cause that Osterman committed a crime.

The judge issuing the warrant “did not have to be certain Osterman was the only suspect; the judge only needed enough information to formulate a substantial belief that Osterman had committed a crime and evidence of the crime would be found by monitoring his truck,” Jackson-Akiwumi explained. “The affidavit provided at least that information if not more absent its misstatements, thereby establishing probable cause. Thus, although we agree with Osterman that Detective Wanta acted recklessly when he failed to update the warrant affidavit, suppression of the fruits of the GPS search remains beyond reach to Osterman because the misstatements in the affidavit are immaterial. Probable cause existed even without them.”

In the days since the ruling was issued, Osterman’s appellate attorney has filed a motion for rehearing, arguing that the appeals court misunderstood “one critical point of fact and two points of law each of which influence the panel’s probable cause analysis.”

The request for rehearing is still pending as the prosecutors — the U.S. Attorneys Office for the Western District of Wisconsin — have yet to weigh in. Most recently, on Aug. 22 the Court of Appeals granted the prosecutors an extension of time to file a written response to Osterman’s request for rehearing.

Heather Schaefer may be reached at [email protected].