Ellis spent 13 years as a trial attorney and supervisory attorney with Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc. He also serves as a digital forensic consultant and expert.
We all know that Google is tracking us. But what does that actually mean? This blog post will try to give you some answers to these questions. The purpose of this post is threefold: first, to provide a primer on how Google collects location data; second, to explain the three-step warrant process used by law enforcement to obtain these records; and third, to give an example of how the data is collected and used by law enforcement.
Note this guidance is based on publicly available information, including recent court opinions. To date, there has not been an opportunity for defense attorneys to seek discovery from Google or to question a qualified representative from Google about their methods of collecting location data. Google began collecting location data in order to provide location-based advertisements to its users.
For Android devices, Google is constantly tracking devices whenever the permission settings on the device are set to allow for the use of Google Location Accuracy. For iOS users, location information is only collected when a user is using a Google product, such as Google Maps. When a device detects an available Wi-Fi network, for instance, it records and sends the unique serial number to Google. Since Google has previously connected the physical location of many such hotspots with the unique identifier, Google assumes that if you are in range of a Wi-Fi hotspot, you should be sent advertisements for businesses in that area.
How Google tracks this data depends on the type of device Android v. This service, called Sensorvault, was designed by Google to sell location-based advertisements. This makes sense considering the goal of Sensorvault is to provide location-based advertisements. For this purpose, if a user is within several blocks of a location, the location-based advertisement succeeds. This becomes relevant because the government claims it is the same procedure used in producing location data to law enforcement.
It is useful to see how Google determines the approximate location of a device by looking at the Location History of a Google account. In this example, according to Google, the blue line indicates the path of travel; the orange dots represent the source of the location data; and the grey sphere next to the blue arrow is the estimated range of the location source. Google determines the line of travel based on the proximity to the sources of location data.
Generally, the location information source has the biggest impact on the Maps Display Radius. In other words, GPS location is generally the most accurate of the major location information sources, and Cell Sites are the least accurate.
For example, the map display radius for GPS is often only a few meters, while locations based on cell sites routinely have radiuses of over meters. Google currently requires law enforcement to obtain three separate warrants to access the information. The specific locations are defined as a radius or a polygon. The third warrant provides information about the owner of the accounts associated with a specific device.
Finally, the court found that the exception established in Terry v. Ohio was for a limited purpose to see whether the officer was at risk of immediate harm and limited in time the duration of the frisk , and thus was distinguishable from the installation of a GPS device, which constitutes a search over a period of time. Having concluded that a warrantless GPS search was never reasonable with anything less than probable cause, the court then turned to the question whether a warrantless GPS search even with probable cause was permissible.
That, the Third Circuit held, is beyond the scope of the automobile exception and constitutes an unreasonable search in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
The Third Circuit got it right. The Fourth Amendment cannot reasonably be understood to permit law enforcement officers to install GPS tracking devices without a warrant on vehicles of anyone merely suspected of a crime.
The warrant requirement serves an invaluable purpose in safeguarding the American people from police overreach and tyranny. It requires a neutral magistrate to adjudicate whether there is probable cause for a search, rather than leaving that discretion in the hands of the government.
The drafters of the Constitution could not have envisioned the use of GPS tracking devices when writing that document; it is incumbent upon us to update our understanding of its protections. Posted in: Constitutional Law , Criminal Procedure.
Can you tell me what a person can do if you suspect that law enforcement has used a GPS device on a vehicle without a warrant? Might there be someone out there that could send me instructions as to how to find the GPS device that has been hidden by law enforcement. Thank you Dan From Minnesota Clockdepot hotmail. I have a Question when obtaining a warrant for gps how long do they have after the warrant is issued to install the gps. Its been a while but Ill ask my question give it a shot…What type of tracking device do they use?
RFID stickers? Share Tweet Share Share. Posted in: Constitutional Law. The Facts and Arguments of United States v. November 5, at am. Dan McGraw says:. March 27, at am. Barbara Shelly Winfrey says:. April 29, at pm.
0コメント