I get that existing case law is different, but I was providing my own interpretation of how I believe the 4th and 5th amendments should apply to a technology th

I get that existing case law is different, but I was providing my own interpretation of how I believe the 4th and 5th amendments should apply to a technology that the people who wrote those amendments could not have envisioned. I strongly believe that implementation details shouldn't be legal loopholes that allow law enforcement additional leeway. In this case, location information being stored on Google's servers is an implementation detail that isn't immediately obvious to non-technical people. > The due process required by the 4th amendment is performed when the court issues a warrant, which they did here The warrant was to search Google's servers, not the potential suspects' phones. What I'm saying is that I believe this data is logically part of the phone despite the fact that it resides on Google's servers because of the way that Google chose to implement their services. If they want to get a warrant for a specific person's phone because they believe the location information in the phone will prove that the suspect was in the area, that's different. But fishing for suspects using location data feels wrong to me. For one, it is almost guaranteed to also cover innocent people. Unless it's a remote area where only the perpetrator and victim were present, someone innocent will get unnecessarily dragged into the investigation.