Geo-fence warrant

Last updated

A geo-fence warrant (also known as a geofence warrant or a reverse location warrant) is a search warrant issued by a court to allow law enforcement to search a database to find all active mobile devices within a particular geo-fence area. Courts have granted law enforcement geo-fence warrants to obtain information from databases such as Google's Sensorvault, which collects users' historical geolocation data. [1] [2] Geo-fence warrants are a part of a category of warrants known as reverse search warrants. [3]

Contents

History

Geo-fence warrants were first used in 2016. [4] Google reported that it had received 982 such warrants in 2018, 8,396 in 2019, and 11,554 in 2020. [3] A 2021 transparency report showed that 25% of data requests from law enforcement to Google were geo-fence data requests. [5] Google is the most common recipient of geo-fence warrants and the main provider of such data, [4] [6] although companies including Apple, Snapchat, Lyft, and Uber have also received such warrants. [4] [5]

Legality

United States

Some lawyers and privacy experts believe reverse search warrants are unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures, and requires any search warrants be specific to what and to whom they apply. [7] The Fourth Amendment specifies that warrants may only be issued "upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." [7] Some lawyers, legal scholars, and privacy experts have likened reverse search warrants to general warrants, which were made illegal by the Fourth Amendment. [7]

Groups including the Electronic Frontier Foundation have opposed geo-fence warrants in amicus briefs filed in motions to quash such orders to disclose geo-fence data. [8]

In 2024 the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals found that geofence warrants are "categorically prohibited by the Fourth Amendment." [9]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution</span> 1791 amendment prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. It prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and sets requirements for issuing warrants: warrants must be issued by a judge or magistrate, justified by probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and must particularly describe the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

A search warrant is a court order that a magistrate or judge issues to authorize law enforcement officers to conduct a search of a person, location, or vehicle for evidence of a crime and to confiscate any evidence they find. In most countries, a search warrant cannot be issued in aid of civil process.

A dragnet is any system of coordinated measures for apprehending criminals or suspects; including road barricades and traffic stops, widespread DNA tests, and general increased police alertness. The term derives from a fishing technique of dragging a fishing net across the sea bottom, or through a promising area of open water.

Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 (1969), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that helped to establish an implied "right to privacy" in U.S. law in the form of mere possession of obscene materials.

California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35 (1988), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the warrantless search and seizure of garbage left for collection outside the curtilage of a home.

Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the court ruled that the use of thermal imaging devices to monitor heat radiation in or around a person's home, even if conducted from a public vantage point, is unconstitutional without a search warrant. In its majority opinion, the court held that thermal imaging constitutes a "search" under the Fourth Amendment, as the police were using devices to "explore details of the home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion." The ruling has been noted for refining the reasonable expectation of privacy doctrine in light of new surveillance technologies, and when those are used in areas that are accessible to the public. This case has been praised by legal scholars since the Court refused to be the arbiter to determine "what is and is not intimate" and thus worthy of protection. Instead, the Court opted to focus on "the invasiveness of the technology itself" and its ability to enable all kinds of government surveillance in the home.

United States v. White, 401 U.S. 745 (1971), was a United States Supreme Court decision which held that recording conversations using concealed radio transmitters worn by informants does not violate the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, and thus does not require a warrant.

United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that installing a Global Positioning System (GPS) tracking device on a vehicle and using the device to monitor the vehicle's movements constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment.

The Geolocation Privacy and Surveillance Act was a bill introduced in the U.S. Congress in 2011 that attempted to limit government surveillance using geolocation information such as signals from GPS systems in mobile devices. The bill was sponsored by Sen. Ron Wyden and Rep. Jason Chaffetz. Since its initial proposal in June 2011, the GPS Act awaits consideration by the Senate Judiciary Committee as well as the House.

<i>Jewel v. National Security Agency</i>

Jewel v. National Security Agency, 673 F.3d 902, was a class action lawsuit argued before the District Court for the Northern District of California and the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed by Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) on behalf of American citizens who believed that they had been surveilled by the National Security Agency (NSA) without a warrant. The EFF alleged that the NSA's surveillance program was an "illegal and unconstitutional program of dragnet communications surveillance" and claimed violations of the Fourth Amendment.

Maryland v. King, 569 U.S. 435 (2013), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court which held that a cheek swab of an arrestee's DNA is comparable to fingerprinting and therefore, a legal police booking procedure that is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.

The third-party doctrine is a United States legal doctrine that holds that people who voluntarily give information to third parties—such as banks, phone companies, internet service providers (ISPs), and e-mail servers—have "no reasonable expectation of privacy" in that information. A lack of privacy protection allows the United States government to obtain information from third parties without a legal warrant and without otherwise complying with the Fourth Amendment prohibition against search and seizure without probable cause and a judicial search warrant.

<i>In re Application of the United States for Historical Cell Site Data</i>

In re Application of the United States for Historical Cell Site Data, 724 F.3d 600, was a case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that the government can access cell site records without a warrant. Specifically, the court held that court orders under the Stored Communications Act compelling cell phone providers to disclose historical cell site information are not per se unconstitutional.

Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the court ruled that the warrantless search and seizure of the digital contents of a cell phone during an arrest is unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment.

City of Los Angeles v. Patel, 576 U.S. 409 (2015), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a Los Angeles law, Municipal Code § 41.49, requiring hotel operators to retain records about guests for a ninety-day period is facially unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution because it does not allow for pre-compliance review.

<i>Microsoft v. United States</i> (2016)

Microsoft Corporation v. United States of America was a complaint for declaratory judgment action filed in the U.S. District Court in Seattle, Washington. At issue was the 1986 Electronic Communications Privacy Act. with Microsoft arguing that secrecy orders were preventing them from disclosing warrants to customers in violation of the company's and customers' rights. The case was started in April 2016 and although the government bid for dismissal of the suit, in February 2017 a federal judge set a trial date set for June 2018. Microsoft was supported in its lawsuit by companies such as Amazon, Apple, Google, Dropbox and Salesforce. The case was dropped by Microsoft in October 2017 after policy changes at the Department of Justice. Although no laws were changed, the new DOJ policy "changed data request rules on alerting Internet users about agencies accessing their information," and mandated defined periods of time for secrecy orders from the government. Although the change represented "most of what Microsoft was asking for," Microsoft did not rule out future litigation.

Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. 296 (2018), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case concerning the privacy of historical cell site location information (CSLI). The Court held that the government violates the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution when it accesses historical CSLI records containing the physical locations of cellphones without a search warrant.

Sensorvault is an internal Google database that contains records of users' historical geo-location data.

A reverse search warrant is a type of search warrant used in the United States, in which law enforcement obtains a court order for information from technology companies to identify a group of people who may be suspects in a crime. They differ from traditional search warrants, which typically apply to specific individuals. Geo-fence warrants, which seek data on mobile phone users who were in a specific location at a given time, and keyword warrants, which request information on users who searched specific phrases, are two types of reverse search warrants.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fog Reveal</span> Product created by Fog Data Science

Fog Reveal is a tracking tool that aggregates location data from mobile apps. It is a product of FOG Data Science.

References

  1. ↑ Valentino-DeVries, Jennifer (April 13, 2019). "Tracking Phones, Google Is a Dragnet for the Police". The New York Times . ISSN   0362-4331 . Retrieved October 17, 2021.
  2. ↑ Brewster, Thomas (December 11, 2019). "Google Hands Feds 1,500 Phone Locations In Unprecedented 'Geofence' Search". Forbes . Retrieved October 17, 2021.
  3. 1 2 Bhuiyan, Johana (September 16, 2021). "The new warrant: how US police mine Google for your location and search history". The Guardian . Retrieved October 17, 2021.
  4. 1 2 3 "Geofence Warrants and the Fourth Amendment". Harvard Law Review . 134 (7). May 10, 2021.
  5. 1 2 Fussell, Sidney (August 27, 2021). "An Explosion in Geofence Warrants Threatens Privacy Across the US". Wired . ISSN   1059-1028 . Retrieved October 17, 2021.
  6. ↑ Rathi, Mohit (2021). "Rethinking Reverse Location Search Warrants". The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology . 111 (3): 805–837. ISSN   0091-4169. JSTOR   48617799 – via JSTOR.
  7. 1 2 3 "Geofence Warrants and the Fourth Amendment". Harvard Law Review . 134 (7). May 10, 2021.
  8. ↑ Lynch, Jennifer; Sobel, Nathaniel (August 31, 2021). "New Federal Court Rulings Find Geofence Warrants Unconstitutional". Electronic Frontier Foundation . Retrieved October 18, 2021.
  9. ↑ Crocker, Andrew (2024-08-12). "Federal Appeals Court Finds Geofence Warrants Are "Categorically" Unconstitutional". Electronic Frontier Foundation. Retrieved 2024-08-13.


This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.