Colorado’s highest court on Monday upheld the search of Google users’ keyword history to identify suspects in a 2020 fatal arson fire, an approach that critics have called a digital dragnet that threatens to undermine people’s privacy and their constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.
However the Colorado Supreme Court cautioned it was not making a “broad proclamation” on the constitutionality of such warrants and emphasized it was ruling on the facts of just this one case.
At issue before the court was a search warrant from Denver police requiring Google to provide the IP addresses of anyone who had searched over 15 days for the address of the home that was set on fire, killing five immigrants from the West African nation of Senegal.
After some back and forth over how Google would be able to provide information without violating its privacy policy, Google produced a spreadsheet of sixty-one searches made by eight accounts. Google provided the IP addresses for those accounts, but no names. Five of the IP addresses were based in Colorado and police obtained the names of those people through another search warrant. After investigating those people, police eventually identified three teens as suspects.
One of them, Gavin Seymour, asked the court to throw the evidence out because it violated the Fourth Amendment’s ban on unreasonable searches and seizures by being overbroad and not being targeted against a specific person suspected of a crime.
Search warrants to gather evidence are typically sought once police have identified a suspect and gathered some probable cause to believe they committed a crime. But in this case, the trail had run cold and police were seeking a “reverse keyword” warrant for the Google search history in a quest to identify possible suspects. Since the attack seemed targeted, investigators believed whoever set fire to the house would have searched for directions to it.
The state Supreme Court ruled that Seymour had a constitutionally protected privacy interest in his Google search history even though it was just connected with an IP address and not his name. While it also said it assumes that the warrant was “constitutionally defective” for not specifying an “individualized probable cause”, the court said it would not throw out the evidence because police were acting in good faith under what was known about the law at the time.
The court said it was not aware…
Click Here to Read the Full Original Article at Fortune | FORTUNE…
