Police departments in Wisconsin and Minnesota found themselves dealing with a rash of burglaries in the latter half of 2025. Their modus operandi was strikingly familiar.
The burglars chose houses situated at the end of cul-de-sacs and bordered by woods. Arriving in early to mid-evening, they gained access by breaking the glass in either a window or a patio door.
Equipped with “jammers” meant to disrupt Wi-Fi signals and security systems, they’d head for the bedrooms, focusing on cash and pieces of jewelry. Long gone before the police arrived, the thieves left no trace behind. Or did they?
A criminal complaint filed in federal court in Milwaukee by a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agent last week demonstrates how law enforcement, despite having very little in the way of traditional clues, was able to bring down members of a South American crime ring responsible for a flurry of break‑ins. Although the burglars seemed to vanish after each set of thefts, authorities used cell‑tower data, phone records, and license plate recognition technology to identify and arrest the suspects roughly two months after the crime spree began.
The case illustrates how investigators can combine different legal tools and data sources to identify suspects when there’s little or no physical evidence available, including trap‑and‑trace orders, search warrants, and data from Flock license plate cameras. The group of thieves, Chilean nationals under the age of 25, probably didn’t help themselves by keeping multiple photos on their phones showing them posing with stolen items, including easily identifiable pieces like a Rolex watch and a distinctive pair of gold earrings. It appears that vanity and hubris can exact a heavy toll.
Have Loot, Will Travel
In the fall of 2025, Wisconsin’s Waukesha and Ozaukee Counties were repeatedly hit by burglars targeting houses in quiet, out‑of‑the‑way neighborhoods. The towns of Mequon and Delafield suffered from break-ins that followed a similar pattern, consisting of two or three burglaries in under a week’s time. Other than a pry bar and a single discarded glove, police initially had little to go on in identifying who was responsible.
What officers did not yet know was that the crew was renting short‑term rentals in each area they planned to hit. After a round of burglaries, they drove back to Florida, staying well away while local law enforcement began investigating. Then they would head north again, rent a new place in a different target area, and repeat the cycle. It was an effective plan … until it wasn’t.
The trio might still be at large if police hadn’t taken full advantage of newer investigative technology. After the Delafield burglaries, the Waukesha County Sheriff’s Office obtained tower‑dump and area search warrants in early November for the locations of the break‑ins. Data from T‑Mobile revealed four unique IMSI numbers that appeared near each burglary during the relevant time frames. About two weeks later, additional records tied those IMSIs to specific cell phone numbers, though they still did not reveal subscriber names.
The records did, however, identify International Mobile Equipment Identity (IMEI) numbers, which are unique to each cellular device. Using location data associated with those IMEIs from T‑Mobile records, investigators traced roughly three months of travel between Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Florida. A separate warrant served on Apple on November 25 provided account information linked to the IMEIs. That combined information led them to one of the previously unknown suspects, who had used one of the phone numbers while making a purchase at a cannabis dispensary in Illinois earlier in November. Follow‑up warrants then provided updated information about the numbers and associated accounts.
In early December, the burglars struck again in Wisconsin, targeting homes in Fox Point, De Pere, and Middleton. By analyzing data from nearby Flock cameras, police identified the vehicle they were using and learned it was registered to a resident of Casselberry, Florida. Additional ALPR (automated license plate reader) cameras documented the vehicle’s trip back to Florida.
When the suspect devices left Florida again a few days later, investigators identified the vehicle they were traveling in. Although it was different from the previous one, it was registered to the same person in Casselberry. By combining updated T‑Mobile data with images from Flock and other police cameras, officers were able to track the crew as they headed back north. The pursuit ended when Waukesha County sheriff’s deputies stopped the vehicle on December 11. Inside, two of the three occupants were carrying phones that matched the previously identified suspect devices, and a fourth phone was also recovered in the vehicle. Officers also found a backpack filled with burglary tools, including a Sawzall, glass punches, and devices consistent with Wi‑Fi jammers.
Maybe Don’t Take a Selfie With the Stolen Stuff
The federal complaint, filed by an FBI special agent who is part of the Homeland Security Task Force (HSTF), charges Leandro F. Pino Uribe with counts of conspiracy to violate the laws of the United States, interstate transportation of stolen goods, and sale or receipt of stolen goods, securities, or money.
It further alleges that Uribe, together with “others known and unknown,” committed these offenses, and the accompanying affidavit identifies Luciano A. Silva Cifuentes and Enjerbet A. Rojas Silva as co‑participants who were in the truck with Uribe and linked to devices that pinged near multiple burglaries. The three members of the theft group are also featured in numerous photos on their phones, posing with their ill‑gotten booty.
While the use of captured data helped break open this case, those concerned about the privacy implications of traffic and license plate cameras are likely to remain uneasy despite the outcome. It’s a reminder that wherever you go, someone may be watching.
Related Resources
- Ousted Whistleblower Files Suit Against Thomson Reuters Over Dismissal (FindLaw’s Courtside)
- Watching Along With Big Brother: Judge Rules License Plate Scans Are Public Record (FindLaw’s Law and Daily Life)
- What’s the Difference Between Burglary and Theft? (FindLaw’s Criminal Charges)
