Geofence warrant:
Searches stemming from a geofence warrant can be likened most succinctly to “fishing expedition[s]”: Law enforcement compels a third-party provider, like Google, to disclose user location history (LH) data of “cell phones in the vicinity of [an] alleged criminal activity under investigation” in order “to narrow the pool” and “fish” out the identity of the criminal suspect. Unlike traditional search warrants, where courts compel a third-party provider to disclose a suspect’s location data after a suspect has been identified, geofence warrants place the cart before the horse. A third-party provider is compelled to disclose LH data of all individuals present in a particular vicinity during an alleged crime before a suspect has been identified. [“The D.C. District Court Upholds the Government’s Geofence Warrant Used to Identify Jan. 6 Rioters,” Saraphin Dhanani, Lawfare]
Further on, the article states:
With so little precedent on what makes geofence warrants constitutional, Judge Contreras’s holding is a breakthrough for the government as it uses LH data obtained through the geofence warrant to level charges against Jan. 6 rioters. More broadly, the case is also instructive for law enforcement as an example of the kinds of Fourth Amendment guardrails that a geofence warrant must have for it to pass constitutional muster.
