From our 'Technology Gone Wrong' Department: (Part 1): Google keyword search warrants have been questioned by Colorado lawyers, Bloomberg (Reporter Julia Love) reports..."After five people were killed in a 2020 arson in Colorado, law enforcement officials failed to turn up any leads through their initial investigative techniques. So they served a warrant to Google for anyone who had searched for the address of the fire, according to a court motion. Google eventually complied with the data request, helping law enforcement find suspects. Three teenagers who had searched the address were charged with murder. But the technique also drew a challenge from defense lawyers, who are calling reverse keyword search warrants “a digital dragnet of immense proportions.” It’s the first case to challenge the constitutionality of the method, the attorneys say. Defense lawyers filed a motion Wednesday to challenge the judge’s decision to use evidence from the warrant to charge their client, Gavin Seymour. They’re asking the Colorado Supreme Court to review the matter, after the judge earlier denied their motion to suppress the evidence. The keyword search warrant “is profoundly different from traditional search warrants seeking data belonging to a suspect,” the defense argued in the court filing. “Instead, the process operates in reverse — search everyone first, and identify suspects later.”

QUOTE OF THE DAY: "“This is a really significant new legal issue with tremendous implications for not only Mr. Seymour but for everyone in the country who uses Google to run searches,” said Michael Price, Litigation Director for the Fourth Amendment Center at National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, who represents Seymour. "

--------------------------------------------------------------

PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "There are few known examples of keyword search warrants, but the practice has come under scrutiny in the wake of the US Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the right to abortion. Some advocates have expressed concern that keyword search warrants and geofence warrants, in which police turn to tech companies for information about users who visited a particular location, could be used to prosecute women who obtain abortions in states where it is illegal.  In a transparency report containing information through 2020, Google said geofence warrants had been on the rise since 2018, adding that they represented more than a quarter of all warrant requests to the search giant in the US. Lawyers for the arson case defendant maintain that Google must search billions of users to respond to keyword search warrants, raising privacy implications far beyond Colorado."

---------------------------------------------------------------

STORY: Google Keyword Search Warrants Questioned by Colorado Lawyers," by Reporter Julia Love, published by Bloomberg, on January 12, 2023.

0: Police ask Google for data on anyone searching a specific term;

0: Several charged with murder after searching address of arson;

GIST:  "After five people were killed in a 2020 arson in Colorado, law enforcement officials failed to turn up any leads through their initial investigative techniques. So they served a warrant to Google for anyone who had searched for the address of the fire, according to a court motion.

Google eventually complied with the data request, helping law enforcement find suspects. Three teenagers who had searched the address were charged with murder. 

But the technique also drew a challenge from defense lawyers, who are calling reverse keyword search warrants “a digital dragnet of immense proportions.” It’s the first case to challenge the constitutionality of the method, the attorneys say.

Defense lawyers filed a motion Wednesday to challenge the judge’s decision to use evidence from the warrant to charge their client, Gavin Seymour. 

They’re asking the Colorado Supreme Court to review the matter, after the judge earlier denied their motion to suppress the evidence.

The keyword search warrant “is profoundly different from traditional search warrants seeking data belonging to a suspect,” the defense argued in the court filing. “Instead, the process operates in reverse — search everyone first, and identify suspects later.”

A spokesperson for the Denver district attorney’s office declined to comment. Representatives for the Denver police department and Google did not immediately respond to requests for comment. 

Investigators secured three keyword search warrants. Google declined to comply with the first two but provided information in response to the third, according to the motion.

There are few known examples of keyword search warrants, but the practice has come under scrutiny in the wake of the US Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the right to abortion.

 Some advocates have expressed concern that keyword search warrants and geofence warrants, in which police turn to tech companies for information about users who visited a particular location, could be used to prosecute women who obtain abortions in states where it is illegal. 

In a transparency report containing information through 2020, Google said geofence warrants had been on the rise since 2018, adding that they represented more than a quarter of all warrant requests to the search giant in the US. 

Lawyers for the arson case defendant maintain that Google must search billions of users to respond to keyword search warrants, raising privacy implications far beyond Colorado.

“This is a really significant new legal issue with tremendous implications for not only Mr. Seymour but for everyone in the country who uses Google to run searches,” said Michael Price, Litigation Director for the Fourth Amendment Center at National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, who represents Seymour. "

The entire story can be read at:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-01-12/google-keyword-search-warrants-questioned-by-colorado-lawyers

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue/resource. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com. Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog;

SEE BREAKDOWN OF SOME OF THE ON-GOING INTERNATIONAL CASES (OUTSIDE OF THE CONTINENTAL USA) THAT I AM FOLLOWING ON THIS BLOG, AT THE LINK BELOW: HL:

https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/120008354894645705/4704913685758792985

FINAL WORD: (Applicable to all of our wrongful conviction cases): "Whenever there is a wrongful conviction, it exposes errors in our criminal legal system, and we hope that this case — and lessons from it — can prevent future injustices."

Lawyer Radha Natarajan:

Executive Director: New England Innocence Project;

—————————————————————————————————

FINAL, FINAL WORD: "Since its inception, the Innocence Project has pushed the criminal legal system to confront and correct the laws and policies that cause and contribute to wrongful convictions. They never shied away from the hard cases — the ones involving eyewitness identifications, confessions, and bite marks. Instead, in the course of presenting scientific evidence of innocence, they've exposed the unreliability of evidence that was, for centuries, deemed untouchable." So true!

Christina Swarns: Executive Director: The Innocence Project;

------------------------------------------------------------