Maryland v. Garrison, 480 U.S. 79, 84 (1987). Through the use of geofence warrants (also known as reverse location warrants), federal and state law enforcement officers are routinely requesting that Google search users' accounts to determine who was in a certain geographic area at a particular timeand then to track individuals outside of that initially specific area and time period. See id. March 15, 2022. While all geofence warrants provide a search radius and time period, they otherwise vary greatly. WIRED may earn a portion of sales from products that are purchased through our site as part of our Affiliate Partnerships with retailers. serves as a useful example, especially when juxtaposed with In re Search of: Information Stored at Premises Controlled by Google, as Further Described in Attachment A (Pharma I).151151. See, e.g., Application for Search Warrant (Minn. Hennepin Cnty. Alamat: Jln. Courts have granted law enforcement geo-fence warrants to obtain information from databases such as Google's Sensorvault, which collects users' historical . As it pertains to law enforcement, geofencing begins with officers defining an area of interest and a time period. If a geofence search involves looking through a private companys entire location history database step one in the Google context there are direct parallels between geofence warrants and general warrants. 527, 56263, 57980 (2017). To protect individual privacy and dignity against arbitrary government intrusions,4848. IV (emphasis added); see also Fed. Execs. Assn, 489 U.S. 602, 615 (1989). The report shows that requests have spiked dramatically in the past three years, rising as much as tenfold in some states. Sometimes, it will request additional location information associated with specific devices in order to eliminate false positives or otherwise determine whether that device is actually relevant to the investigation.7272. In 2017, Minnesota officers applied for a warrant asking Google for [a]ny/all user or subscriber information related to the Google searches of the names of various individuals with the first name Douglas.184184. George Joseph & WNYC Staff, Manhattan DA Got Innocent Peoples Google Phone Data Through a Reverse Location Search Warrant, Gothamist (Aug. 13, 2019, 5:38 PM), https://gothamist.com/news/manhattan-da-got-innocent-peoples-google-phone-data-through-a-reverse-location-search-warrant [https://perma.cc/RH9K-4BJZ]. Maryland v. Garrison, 480 U.S. 79, 84 (1987). Across all 50 states, geofence requests to Google increased from 941 in 2018 to 11,033 in 2020 and now make up more than 25 percent of all data requests the company receives from law enforcement. Now, Googles transparency report has revealed the scale at which people nationwide may have faced the same violation. In the past, the greatest protections of privacy were neither constitutional nor statutory, but practical.176176. As consumers turn over ever-increasing information to third parties as part of engaging in daily life, there have been vigorous criticisms of the doctrine as out of touch with the modern era and calls to amend it or even abolish it entirely. about cell phone usage. Geofence warrants arent only issued to Google. and Apple said . The Supreme Court has rejected efforts to expand the scope of this provision to embrace unenumerated matters. United States v. Grubbs, 547 U.S. 90, 97 (2006). See Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 700 (1996); Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 480 (1963); Erica Goldberg, Getting Beyond Intuition in the Probable Cause Inquiry, 17 Lewis & Clark L. Rev. This Part describes the limited role judges and the public currently play in approving and scrutinizing geofence warrants and how Google responds to them. It should be a last resort, because its so invasive.. In Wong Sun v. United States,115115. 2016). This type of devastating scheme ensnares victims and takes them for all theyre worthand the threat is only growing. .); United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400, 415 (2012) (Sotomayor, J., concurring); see also Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 360 (1967) (Harlan, J., concurring). This Note presumes that geofence warrants are Fourth Amendment searches. Application for Search Warrant, supra note 174. P. 41(e)(2). agent[s] of the government not only when they produce the final list of names to law enforcement but also when they search their entire databases in order to produce these names.8181. But lawyers for Rhine, a Washington man accused of various federal crimes on January 6, recently filed a motion to suppress the geofence evidence. Judges do not consistently engage in the informed and deliberate decisionmaking that the Fourth Amendment contemplated. Fifth Circuit Delivers a New Law Enforcement Functions Test for Identifying Government Actors. The Warrant included the following photograph of the area with the geofence superimposed over it: The Warrant sought location data for every device present within the geofence from 4:20 p.m. to 5:20 p.m. on the day of the robbery. . Orin S. Kerr, Searches and Seizures in a Digital World, 119 Harv. . In others, police have targeted the wrong man, or retrieved data on more than 1,000 phones going through the area, raising concerns about how innocent people can be affected by such warrants. Apple, Uber, and Snapchat have . Carpenter, 138 S. Ct. at 2218. checking the whereabouts of millions of innocent people across the globe just to rule them in as suspects, without producing any evidence about which people, if any, were anywhere near the crime scene. Rather than issuing a warrant for data on a specific individual, these warrants seek information on all of the devices in a given area at a given time. There was likely no evidence of the crime in these other areas. The order will indicate a small area where the incident occurred and a window of time when it happened. See, e.g., Stephen Silver, Police Are Casting a Wide Net into the Deep Pool of Google User Location Data to Solve Crimes, AppleInsider (Mar. The Court has recognized that the reasonableness standard introduces uncertainty, see United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 914 (1984), and many have criticized the standards flexibility and have called for its further definition, see, e.g., United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102, 117 (1965) (Douglas, J., dissenting); Ronald J. Bacigal, Making the Right Gamble: The Odds on Probable Cause, 74 Miss. Either way, judges consider only the warrant immediately before them and may not think through how their proposed tests will be extrapolated.179179. There is, additionally, the age-old critique that judges do not understand the technologies they confront. The Chatrie opinion suggests it would approve a geofence warrant process in which a magistrate or court got to make a probable cause determination before geofence data of the likely suspect is de . But see Orin S. Kerr, The Case for the Third-Party Doctrine, 107 Mich. L. Rev. This Note focuses on the subsequent inquiry: If the Fourth Amendment is triggered, how should judges consider probable cause and particularity when reviewing warrant applications? zS 1, 2021), https://www.statista.com/statistics/232786/forecast-of-andrioid-users-in-the-us [https://perma.cc/4EDN-MRUN]. The . Courts have already shown great concern over technologies such as physical tracking devices,9797. After producing a narrowed list of accounts in response to a warrant, companies often engage in a back-and-forth with law enforcement, where officials requestadditional location information about specific devices from before or after the requested timeframe to narrow the list of suspects.8282. . The trick is knowing which thing to disable. It turns out that these warrants are so invasive of user privacy that big tech companies like Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo are willing to support banning them. North Carolina,1717. 18 U.S.C. R. Crim. While there was likely probable cause to search the businesses where pharmaceuticals were stolen, this probable cause did not extend to other units of the building or neighboring areas.153153. The number of geofence warrants police submitted to Google has risen dramatically. Google Amicus Brief, supra note 11, at 1213. To work, those people must be using cellphones or other electronic devices that have . and the possibility of the federal government scaling up such surveillance to identify every single person at a protest, regardless of whether or not they broke the law or any suspicion of wrongdoing raises core constitutional concerns.110110. They are paradigmatic dragnets that run against everyone.104104. Companies can still resist complying with geofence warrants across the country, be much more transparent about the geofence warrants it receives, provide all affected users with notice, and give users meaningful choice and control over their private data. Like thousands of other innocent individuals each year, McCoy and Molina were made suspects through the use of geofence warrants.99. Although these warrants have been used since 2016 26 26. not due to the accompanying documents or post hoc narrowing by law enforcement or a private company.164164. The Fourth Amendment provides that warrants must particularly describ[e] the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.158158. See Berger v. New York, 388 U.S. 41, 56 (1967). These warrants often do not lead to catching perpetrators2222. We looked for any warrant described as targeting . and raise interesting and novel Fourth Amendment questions, they have rarely been studied.2727. Conclusion. Johnson, 333 U.S. at 14; see also Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 35859 (1967). 561 (2009). Google uses its stored location data to personalize advertisements, estimate traffic times, report on how busy restaurants are, and more. Berger v. New York, 388 U.S. 41, 62 (1967); see also Lopez v. United States, 373 U.S. 427, 464 (1963) (Brennan, J., dissenting). . Take a reasonably probable hypothetical: In response to the largest set of geofence warrants revealed to date, Google provided law enforcement with the location for 1,494 devices. . (May 31, 2020). Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206, 2217 (2018). As Wired explains, in the U.S. these warrants had increased from 941 in 2018 to 11,033 in 2020. The Mystery Vehicle at the Heart of Teslas New Master Plan, All the Settings You Should Change on Your New Samsung Phone, This Hacker Tool Can Pinpoint a DJI Drone Operator's Location, Amazons HQ2 Aimed to Show Tech Can Boost Cities. Similarly, with a. , police compel the company to hand over the identities of anyone who may have searched for a specific term, such as a victims name or a particular address where a crime has occurred. Despite Molina having an alibi confirmed by multiple witnesses and the fact that the same location data impossibly placed him in multiple locations at the same time on numerous occasions, the police arrested him, locked him in jail for six days, and informed dozens of media outlets that he was the suspect in a highly publicized murder case.77. It is unclear whether the data collected is stored indefinitely, see Webster, supra note 5 (suggesting that it is), but there are strong constitutional arguments that it should not be, see United States v. Ganias, 824 F.3d 199, 21518 (2d Cir. The three stage warrant process is based on an agreement between Google and the Department of Justice's Computer Crime and Intellectual . Minnesota law enforcement has already turned to geofence warrants to identify protesters,109109. The decision believed to be the first of its kind could make it more difficult for police to continue using an investigative technique that has exploded in popularity in recent years, privacy . Chrome is not limited to mobile devices running the Android operating system and can also be installed and used on Apple devices. Going to cell phone providers is a bit tricky, thanks to the Supreme Cou Part II begins with the threshold question of when a geofence search occurs and argues that it is when private companies parse through their entire location history databases to find accounts that fit within a warrants parameters. See Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 35657 (1967); see also Lo-Ji Sales, Inc. v. New York, 442 U.S. 319, 325 (1979). Groh v. Ramirez, 540 U.S. 551, 561 (2004). Theres always collateral damage, says Jake Laperruque, senior policy counsel for the Constitution Project at the nonprofit Project on Government Oversight. and should, by default, be available to ensure the transparency of the courts decisionmaking process.6363. Another covered solely a small L-shaped roadway,168168. and that restraints on discretion are imposed by judges rather than the officers themselves.127127. Pharma II, No. 279, 33940 (2004); Margaret Raymond, Down on the Corner, Out in the Street: Considering the Character of the Neighborhood in Evaluating Reasonable Suspicion, 60 Ohio St. L.J.
March 11, 2023