Mon Jan 1, 0001

Search History & Reverse Warrants

Keyword Warrants

Police ask Google for identifying information on ALL users who searched specific keywords during a time window. Reverses traditional warrant model: instead of “show me what this suspect searched,” it’s “show me everyone who searched for X.”

People v. Seymour (Colorado Supreme Court, 2023)

Police used keyword warrant to ask Google for anyone who searched variations of a home’s street address in two weeks before arson that killed five people. Court ruled warrant was constitutionally defective (no individualized probable cause) but allowed evidence under “good faith” exception.

Geofence Warrants

Police define geographic area and time window, compel Google to produce information on every device present.

United States v. Chatrie

Geofence warrant served on Google to find who was near a bank robbery in Richmond, VA. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case to decide constitutionality.

United States v. Smith (Fifth Circuit)

Court held geofence warrant requiring Google to review 592 million individual accounts was “the exact sort of general, exploratory rummaging that the Fourth Amendment was designed to prevent.” Strongest appellate ruling against geofence warrants to date.

Google’s Response (December 2023)

Announced Location History data would be stored on-device rather than Google servers, potentially making future geofence warrants impossible to fulfill. Historical data still held by Google.

Sources