I wonder if they settle for Google, or try everywhere -Duck Duck Go, or Bing, for instance.
So basically, a complete fishing expedition aided and abetted by our total lack of digital privacy. What’s the criteria? IP address? Login? So do it from a coffee shop?
I’ve been retired for a few years and it’s been longer since I was a detective but even then it had become a rare thing for companies to comply with subpoenas. The majority of companies required a CDW (communications data warrant). Organizations like the FBI may have a more direct link to companies but for someone like me it was often extremely difficult to find a company’s law enforcement liaison. It was nearly impossible to get ahold of a human. For companies based outside of the U.S. we were largely ignored. The other issue is it’s not guaranteed that the data is kept. It’s a lot of storage to keep everyone’s data forever. When we knew a CDW was forthcoming we would send a Letter of Preservation requesting data for a certain period was saved. IIRC Verizon purges text messages after 10 days. Other data may be there longer. It’s not forever.
Like every other search warrant a CDW has to contain an affidavit of probable cause explaining what is being searched for, why the information is needed and the reasons why the information is believed to be there. It can get pretty technical as to what kind of data is being requested.
True. But up until I retired from my first career I had some buddies (all retired cops themselves) that worked in the security/investigative departments of local utilities. They told me anything I wanted. I’d refer to their data bases as “The God Computer”. How much water, electricity they were using, phone records, etc . Names of everyone living at a particular address, every vehicle registered to everyone, credit reports, everything. I could get some of this info on my own but they could get it without leaving a trail that it was obtained. It was particularly good for skip traces as they could track Social Security records. We caught up with a number of wanted parties that tried to fall off the grid by tracking the SS numbers of people they consorted with. If I had to do that legit it would have taken forever.
Was releasing this info to me legal? Was it ethical? Did it violate their work rules? Hmm. It was a sweet deal.
Thanks. I’m more inclined to think when news says “computer search history” it means a forensic analysis of the computer search history, the cache for the browser etc.
I’m just trying to understand what would constitute “probable cause” to search computer contents, when it’s a homicide or such. I can see phone records as in “what communication was this person possibly having around the time of the crime”. But why their home computer? I.e. What points to “they probably googled best ways to kill with a knife”?
Every search warrant is unique and special like a snowflake. As I said earlier there is usually a bunch of boilerplate language that is copy and paste but the particulars of the probable cause are unique to each case.
I was a drug cop for almost 20 years and a homicide supervisor for a little less than one year. I feel safe in claiming that I wrote hundreds of search warrant applications.. We would almost always get a warrant for a crime scene inside a residence or other private place. If things were perceived to be time-sensitive, it was trivially easy to a telephonic warrant. You still needed actual probable cause but in the case of homicide, it wouldn’t take a whole lot to convince a judge. We used Superior Court judges in NJ. They knew the law and I never had a search warrant suppressed. Municipal court judges (think traffic court judges) were sometimes used by local officers for less serious crimes but sometimes they would approve a warrant where the PC was shaky and it would get tossed in Superior Court after a motion to suppress. Pretty rare but it did happen. Also, we had to run the application by an assistant prosecutor before going to a judge and they were often more demanding than the judge. Sometimes, ridiculously so.
For non-lawyers/cops - if you get a warrant, the search is presumed to good and the defendant has to overcome that presumption in a hearing. Warrantless searches are presumed to bad and the state has the burden to show that one of the exceptions to the warrant requirement was in play. When in doubt, get a warrant. It is really not hard to do, once you’ve written a few.
Good to hear from a pro- thanks!
The point I was asking about - what sort of probable cause would a police officer/prosecutor need to get a warrant to search google history? Or are searches of computers routinely covered in investigations into murders and similar crimes? Is evidence of premeditation sufficient to allow searches of computers and phones, or is there some specific indication required “they planned this using a computer”?