Estimated Time to Read: 9 minutes
In a groundbreaking decision, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit recently ruled that geofence warrants, a novel investigative tool used by law enforcement, are categorically unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. This ruling, stemming from the case of United States v. Gilbert McThunel, et al., has significant implications for privacy rights in the digital age, setting a precedent that may ultimately reach the United States Supreme Court.
What are geofence warrants? Does law enforcement in Texas use them? We decided to explore.
The Case that Sparked the Debate
The case began with the robbery of a postal service worker in Mississippi, where a suspect, later identified as Gilbert McThunel, was caught on surveillance footage checking his cell phone during the crime. With no other leads, postal inspectors turned to a relatively new investigative technique: geofence warrants. These warrants require companies like Google to provide data on all users within a certain geographic area during a specific time frame, effectively casting a wide net to identify potential suspects.
In McThunel’s case, this method led to his arrest and conviction, as the data provided by Google placed him at the scene of the crime. However, McThunel appealed his conviction, arguing that the geofence warrant used to gather the evidence against him violated his Fourth Amendment rights.
For reference, the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or aaffirmation, and particularly describing the place to be search, and the persons or things to be seized.”
Understanding Geofence Warrants
Unlike traditional search warrants, which are based on probable cause and target specific individuals or locations, geofence warrants operate in reverse. Law enforcement agencies do not know who they are looking for; instead, they identify a location and a timeframe, and then request data from tech companies to see which devices were in that area at that time. This data is often collected from the location history stored by services like Google, which track users’ movements via GPS, Wi-Fi, and Bluetooth.
This method, while innovative, has raised significant privacy concerns. Approximately one-third of Google’s 592 million users have their location history enabled, meaning vast amounts of data are silently collected and stored in Google’s “Sensorvault.” When a geofence warrant is issued, Google must search this entire database to find users who match the criteria set by law enforcement, potentially implicating innocent individuals simply because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Google’s Sensorvault and Privacy Concerns
Google’s Sensorvault, a massive database storing the location data of millions of users, has become a treasure trove for law enforcement agencies seeking to identify suspects through geofence warrants. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has previously raised alarms about this practice, highlighting how Google’s Sensorvault can reveal a detailed history of an individual’s movements, often without their explicit knowledge or consent. The data collected includes everything from casual outings to more private activities, such as visits to medical facilities or religious institutions.
The existence of such a vast and detailed repository of location data poses significant risks to privacy. The fact that this data can be accessed by law enforcement through a geofence warrant, without the need for probable cause targeting a specific individual, represents a new frontier in surveillance. The potential for abuse is immense, as the authorities can cast a wide net and potentially implicate innocent people merely for being in the vicinity of a crime.
The Fifth Circuit’s Ruling
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals covers the states of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas. The court panel’s decision marked a significant victory for privacy advocates. The court held that geofence warrants are akin to the “general warrants” that the Fourth Amendment was designed to prevent. General warrants, which were widely used by British authorities in colonial America, allowed officers to search any location or person without specific cause, leading to widespread abuse and invasions of privacy. The Founding Fathers’ experience with these warrants was a key motivator behind the inclusion of the Fourth Amendment in the Bill of Rights.
In its opinion, the Fifth Circuit emphasized that geofence warrants represent “the exact sort of general, exploratory rummaging” that the Fourth Amendment was meant to guard against. The court drew a direct parallel between geofence warrants and the “general warrants” of the colonial era, both of which allow for broad, indiscriminate searches without probable cause.
The ruling further criticized the use of these warrants for what it described as “petty crimes,” noting that law enforcement has been using this powerful tool not only for serious offenses but also for relatively minor infractions. The court expressed concern over the widespread use of geofence warrants, highlighting the potential for abuse as law enforcement agencies increasingly turn to this method in routine investigations.
The Dissenting Opinion from the Fourth Circuit
This ruling stands in direct contrast to a decision by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, which previously held that geofence warrants do not constitute searches under the Fourth Amendment because the actual search is conducted by a private company—Google—rather than the government itself. The Fourth Circuit’s position was that since Google performs the search and only turns over data after the fact, law enforcement is not directly involved in the initial data collection, and thus, the Fourth Amendment does not apply in the same way. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals covers the states of Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia.
The Fifth Circuit strongly disagreed with this interpretation, arguing that the involvement of a third party does not absolve the government of its constitutional obligations. The court noted that the Fourth Amendment protects against both searches and seizures conducted by private parties if those parties are acting as agents of the government. Therefore, it concluded that the use of geofence warrants by law enforcement, even if the initial search is carried out by a private company, still falls under the purview of the Fourth Amendment.
The Good Faith Exception
Despite ruling that geofence warrants are unconstitutional, the Fifth Circuit did not overturn McThunel’s conviction. The court invoked the “good faith” exception, which allows evidence obtained through an unconstitutional search to be used in court if law enforcement officers were acting in the reasonable belief that they were following the law. In McThunel’s case, the court found that the postal inspectors who obtained the geofence warrant had done so in good faith, relying on the existing legal framework at the time.
What Texas Lawmakers Can Do
As the 89th Legislative Session approaches, commencing in January 2025, Texas lawmakers have an opportunity to take proactive steps to protect residents’ privacy in the wake of this ruling. One approach could be to introduce legislation that explicitly prohibits the use of geofence warrants within the state, thereby ensuring that law enforcement agencies in Texas cannot exploit this invasive tool. Such legislation could be modeled after existing data privacy laws that protect individuals from unwarranted government surveillance.
Moreover, Texas could follow the lead of states that have enacted stronger digital privacy protections, requiring law enforcement to obtain specific warrants based on probable cause for individual suspects rather than using broad, generalized searches. This would align state law with the principles outlined in the Fifth Circuit’s decision and provide additional safeguards against the misuse of digital data.
Additionally, Texas lawmakers could consider mandating transparency from tech companies like Google regarding the requests they receive from law enforcement. By requiring annual reports on the number and nature of these requests, the state could enhance public awareness and oversight, ensuring that such surveillance tools are not being used excessively or without proper justification.
Implications for the Future
The Fifth Circuit’s ruling has significant implications for the future of digital privacy and law enforcement practices. By declaring geofence warrants unconstitutional, the court has set the stage for a potential showdown in the United States Supreme Court, particularly given the conflicting opinions from different circuit courts. If the Supreme Court takes up the case, its decision could have far-reaching consequences for the use of digital data in criminal investigations.
Privacy advocates have hailed the ruling as a crucial step in protecting individual rights in the digital age. As more aspects of our lives are tracked and stored by technology companies, the potential for government overreach increases. The Fifth Circuit’s decision underscores the importance of maintaining robust constitutional protections against such intrusions.
On the other hand, law enforcement agencies may view this ruling as a setback, arguing that geofence warrants are a valuable tool in solving crimes, especially in cases where other leads have run dry. The balance between effective law enforcement and the protection of privacy rights is a delicate one, and the debate over geofence warrants highlights the challenges of navigating this balance in an increasingly digital world.
Conclusion
The Fifth Circuit’s decision on geofence warrants marks a pivotal moment in the ongoing debate over privacy and technology. By ruling these warrants unconstitutional, the court has reaffirmed the importance of the Fourth Amendment in protecting against broad, indiscriminate searches in the digital age. As this issue moves through the courts, it will be crucial to watch how the legal landscape evolves and what it means for both privacy rights and law enforcement practices in the future.
This ruling serves as a reminder that while technology can enhance our lives and aid in solving crimes, it also brings new challenges that require careful consideration of our constitutional rights. As Texas lawmakers convene for the upcoming session, they have a vital role to play in ensuring that the state’s residents are protected from invasive surveillance practices like geofence warrants, setting an example for the rest of the nation.
Texas Policy Research relies on the support of generous donors across Texas.
If you found this information helpful, please consider supporting our efforts! Thank you!
