2 ms·

From the two paragraphs at the start that I can read, I've gotta say that this is more novel than I expected. "Who looked up the address of the house that burne

• ghaff 3y ago
  "Lawyers for one of the suspects, Gavin Seymour, who was found to have Googled the home’s address 14 times in the days before the fire, argued that the keyword warrant constituted an illegal search and that any evidence from it should be suppressed. His motion is the first known challenge to the constitutionality of keyword search warrants. The case is ongoing. In its 74-page decision, the court found that law enforcement had acted in good faith when it obtained the warrant for the teen’s search history. Still, it stressed that the findings were specific to the facts of the case, and it refrained from weighing in about the use of Google’s search data more broadly." On the one hand, it sounds like a pretty, umm, smoking gun in this case. (And the court was fairly careful to emphasize that this wasn't a general carte blanche for this sort of warrant.) On the other hand, it's easy to imagine broader warrants returning results that are more ambiguous than seems to be the case here.
  • isk517 3y ago
    I feel like it was just a case of good luck (assuming that the suspect they found is actually guilty) that the suspect googled the home's address 14 times. This feels like the type of thing if allowed to become more mainstream will just result in harassment of unrelated parties for having the bad luck to have coincidentally search something at a bad time.