One way law enforcement tries to identify suspects is through a "geofence warrant." In short, law enforcement asks providers like Google to tell it what devices (typically, cell phones) were in a specific area at a specific time. The idea is to get a universe of potential bad guys.
Yesterday, the Eleventh Circuit decided that defendants generally don't have standing to challenge such searches as violating the Fourth Amendment. In the case, the defendant, Davis, moved to suppress Google data showing that a phone that was associated with him (it was his girlfriend's phone) was at the scene of a robbery and carjacking.
The Court ruled that Davis lacked standing to challenge the search. Though much of the Court's analysis turned on the phone not being Davis's phone, it also downplayed the invasiveness of geofence searches, noting they were too restrictive in their scope to be considered the kind of "near-constant electronic surveillance" that certain Supreme Court Justices (Sotomayor and Alito specifically) had identified as potentially problematic.
Judge Jordan concurred in the opinion, giving a fairly detailed account of how Google handles geofence warrants, noting the uncertainties in how other companies (e.g., Apple) responds to them, and taking issue with some of the conclusions by the majority.
Once you read Davis, you'll be able to impress your friends/neighbors/relatives with all your geofence knowledge.
Davis Opinion by John Byrne on Scribd
Jordan exposed Brasher's over-simplification. Big time. And it turns out that the three-step process is one Google foisted on the government which could care less of about anyone's privacy rights.
ReplyDelete