Cobun Zweifel-Keegan, J.D., CIPP/US, CIPM’s Post

Do companies store your location history in "glass-front storage units" for the government to peer into? That's one analogy the U.S. Supreme Court Justices grappled with yesterday during oral arguments in Chatrie v. United States, a case that could re-define the rules around the use of geofence warrants. You can read IAPP's reporting on the arguments here: https://lnkd.in/eCk4DpdZ (H/t to my brilliant friends Stacey Gray and Katelyn Ringrose for helping me refine this explanation.) Why glass storage units? The analogy comes up as a way of breaking down the three procedural steps of a geofence warrant, with litigants arguing about the scope and timing of the government searches that occur when a third-party like Google filters user accounts for certain types of personal data (in this case geolocation). National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers argues that searches of individual Google Accounts would require a search warrant, possibly for each account, in the same way the government can't show up to a storage facility and demand all doors be opened because one might have evidence of a crime contained, even if the storage unit owner (like Google's Location History) has the ability to enter each separate unit.  Step 1 law enforcement request: peering through the glass walls, do any storage units appear to contain guns? (Which devices were present within this geofence during a set time?) Step 2 request: taking a closer look at those glass storage units that contain guns, can we narrow the search by focusing on just those that also have ammunition, or some other factor? (Of the devices present in the geofence, which meet additional screening criteria *required by Google* to narrow the government's search?) Step 3 request: who rented those storage units that are holding guns and ammunition? (Provide the data from individuals / devices meeting all of the narrowed search parameters.)