The Colorado Supreme Court on Monday upheld a search of Google users’ keyword histories to identify suspects in a deadly 2020 arson attack, a practice that critics called a digital dragnet that had the potential to undermine people’s privacy and unreasonable constitutional limits. Search and seizure protection.
However, the Colorado Supreme Court warned that it was not making a “broad statement” on the constitutionality of such warrants and emphasized that it was ruling on the facts of this case only.
At issue in court is a search warrant issued by Denver police demanding that Google provide the IP addresses of anyone who searched for the address of a house that burned within 15 days. Killed five immigrants from the West African country of Senegal.
After back-and-forth discussions about how Google could provide information without violating its privacy policy, Google created a spreadsheet containing 61 searches from eight accounts. Google provided the IP addresses but not the names of these accounts. Five of the IP addresses were located in Colorado, and police obtained their names through a separate search warrant. After investigating the individuals, police eventually identified three teenagers as suspects.
One of them, Gavin Seymour, asked the court to throw out the evidence because it was too broad and did not target a specific suspect, violating the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures. .
Once police identify a suspect and gather some probable cause to believe they committed a crime, a search warrant is typically sought to collect evidence. But in this case, the clues have disappeared and police are looking for a “reverse keyword” search warrant of Google search history to identify possible suspects. Because the attack appeared to be targeted, investigators believe whoever set the house on fire was looking for directions to the home.
The state Supreme Court ruled that Seymour had a constitutionally protected privacy interest in his Google search history, even though that history was tied only to IP addresses and not his name. While the court also said the warrant was presumed to be “constitutionally defective” because “individual probable cause” was not specified, it said the evidence would not be discarded because police acted in good faith and based on known law. time.
The court said it was aware of no other state supreme court or federal appeals court that had dealt with such a search warrant before.
“Our good faith inquiry today neither condones nor condemns all such warrants in the future. If dystopias arise, as some fear, the courts stand ready to hear arguments about how we should limit law enforcement’s use of rapidly evolving technology. Today we will move forward step by step based on the facts before us.”
Justice Monica Marks said in a dissent that such a broad search of the search histories of a billion Google users, without a specific target, is exactly the type the Fourth Amendment was designed to prevent.
“At the risk of sounding alarmist, I am concerned that by upholding this approach, today’s majority ruling provides a constitutional safeguard for law enforcement seeking unprecedented access to individuals’ private lives, not just in Colorado but around the world. “I fear that today’s ruling will require courts across the country to do the same,” she said in the dissent, which was joined by Justice Carlos Samour.
Google said in a statement that the court’s ruling recognized the importance of privacy and First Amendment interests involved in keyword searches.
“For all law enforcement requests, including reverse search warrants, we have rigorous processes in place designed to protect our users’ privacy while supporting the important work of law enforcement,” it said.
The ruling allows the prosecution of Seymour and Kevin Bui, who were 16 at the time of the Aug. 5, 2020, fire, to proceed in adult court on charges of first-degree murder, attempted murder, arson and burglary.Investigators say Bui organized the attack on the house Because he mistakenly believed that the man who stole his iPhone during a robbery lived there.
Phone messages and emails sent to Seymour’s attorneys, Jennifer Stinson and Michael Juba, were not immediately returned. Bouie’s attorney, Christian Earle, could not be reached for comment.
A third teen, Dillon Siebert, then 14, who was initially charged as a juvenile, pleaded guilty in adult court earlier this year to second-degree murder, which prosecutors and the defense said The agreement balanced the smaller role he played in orchestrating the fire. , his remorse and interest in rehabilitation from the horrors of the crime. He was sentenced to 10 years in prison In jail.
Svlook
