Colorado district attorney cannot serve Google with overbroad reverse search warrant

FORT COLLINS, Colo. (CN) — In an age where a simple Google search can help anyone find directions to any apartment building in the U.S., there are still limits to the tech titan’s ability to provide data in aid of law enforcement. A Colorado judge granted the digital powerhouse’s motion to quash a search warrant filed by the Eighth Judicial District Attorney’s Office as being overbroad and unduly burdensome.

“The court has little trouble concluding that the reverse-keyword warrant seeks records that are unusually voluminous in nature and imposes an undue burden on Google,” wrote Eighth Judicial District Judge Juan Villaseñor in a 15-page order.

Earlier this year, the Eighth Judicial District Attorney’s Office, which serves northern Colorado, filed a reverse search warrant with Google requesting data on people who searched for a specific address in Fort Collins, a city 65 miles north of Denver where a homeowner was assaulted.

Investigators believe the unknown perpetrator used Google to survey the location, and that they may have looked for news of their exploit afterward.

A magistrate judge initially granted the search warrant based on an affidavit provided by a Fort Collins police detective. On Oct. 24, Google filed a civil case in the District Court for Larimer County to quash the warrant.

To protect the integrity of the underlying investigation in which no one has been charged with a crime, Villaseñor suppressed the original complaint and closed the courtroom during a Dec. 3 hearing.

In Friday’s order, Villaseñor omitted details about the investigation, but expounded on his reasons for killing the warrant.

Google legal investigations analyst Nikki Adeli told the court Google juggles 100,000 requests related to legal processes each year, along with 60,000 to 70,000 search warrants. According to Adeli, the company could not determine the specific location someone was in when they made a search.

Under the search warrant served, Google would have had to look for specific individuals among billions of users who looked up five separate search queries during an 18-day period, a feat that could take weeks if not months to narrow down to a million-person shortlist.

“The breathtakingly broad scope of each search term group is obvious,” wrote Villasenor, an appointee of former Democratic Governor John Hickenlooper.

Google raised claims under the First and Fourth Amendment as well as the Stored Communications Act to block the search.

The Fourth Amendment claim allowed Google to request a hearing, which prosecutors quietly countered. Villasenor found “buried in its brief, the prosecution timidly argues that Google lacks standing to challenge the search warrant on Fourth Amendment grounds.”

Still, Villaseñor sided with prosecutors in rejecting the Fourth Amendment shield. Villaseñor then declined to analyze the merits of Google’s First Amendment free speech claim after finding the company’s Stored Communications Act argument adequately blocked the warrant.

“The court agrees with Google that the search warrant violates the SCA because it requires production of records that are ‘unusually voluminous in nature’ and compliance with the warrant imposes ‘an undue burden’ upon Google,” Villaseñor wrote.

Attorney Daniel Graham, of Perkins Coie’s Denver office, did not immediately respond to an inquiry for comment, nor did Google’s press office.

Deputy District Attorney Callan Elizabeth Riedel represented the Eighth Judicial District Attorney’s Office throughout the proceeding.

Follow @bright_lamp