Should the police be able to identify everyone who was in a busy metropolitan area, just because a crime occurred there? In two amicus briefs just filed in appellate courts, we argue that’s a clearly unconstitutional search.[1]
The two cases are People v. Meza, in the California Court of Appeal, and United States v. Chatrie, in the federal Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. In each case, the defendant is challenging the police use of a surveillance tool we’ve written about before called a “geofence warrant.” In both cases, the lower courts denied motions to suppress. In Chatrie, however, the district court issued a lengthy opinion holding the geofence warrant was unconstitutional before ruling that police relied on the warrant in “good faith” and therefore the evidence from their search was admissible.
Unlike traditional warrants for electronic records, a geofence warrant doesn’t start with a particular suspect or even a device or account; instead police request data on every device in a given geographic area during a designated time period, regardless of whether the device owner has any connection to the crime under investigation. Google has said that for each warrant, it must search its entire database of users’ location history information—data on hundreds of millions of users.
The data Google provides to police in response to a geofence warrant has the potential to be very precise—much more precise than cell site location information, for example. It allows Google to determine wh
[…]
Content was cut in order to protect the source.Please visit the source for the rest of the article.
Read the original article: