The Colorado Supreme Court upheld a search warrant involving examining a Google user's keyword history to identify a suspect in a deadly 2020 arson. The ruling drew criticism from privacy advocates, including the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), who wanted a blanket ban on keyword search warrants.
In Seymour v. Colorado, Denver police executed a search warrant demanding that Google provide the IP addresses of anyone who searched for the home's address within 15 days of it being set on fire. The attack killed five Senegalese migrants, including an infant and a toddler.
ABC News writes that Google was not quick to comply with the request due to possible privacy policy violations, but the company eventually relented and handed over the IP addresses that did not have matching names. A total of 61 searches were conducted across eight accounts, five of which were located in Colorado. Police obtained the names of locals through another search warrant and eventually identified three teenagers as suspects.
Police said one of the boys, Gavin Seymour, had Googled the property's address several times before the fire. His attorneys asked that the evidence be thrown out because it violated the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures because it did not target a specific suspect. It is reported that the police investigation has reached an impasse, leading them to seek a reverse keyword search warrant to identify possible suspects.
While the court said Seymour had a constitutionally protected right to privacy in his Google search history and presumed the search warrant was "constitutionally defective" for failing to specify "probable cause for personalization," the justices ruled in a split decision that the police acted in good faith, meaning the evidence would be allowed in court despite the warrant's legal flaws.
Monica Márquez, one of the dissenting judges, wrote: "Today, the court congratulates law enforcement for using a new tool of the digital age: the reverse keyword search warrant. This search warrant is invalid [...] and a good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule cannot save its unconstitutional nature."
EFF and the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) filed amicus briefs highlighting the privacy implications of reverse keyword search warrants. The EFF noted that these search warrants have the potential to implicate innocent people or target people searching for information about abortion in states where abortion is criminalized.
Google said in a statement that the court's ruling must recognize the privacy and First Amendment interests involved in keyword searches.
"For all law enforcement requests, including reverse authorization, we have a rigorous process designed to protect user privacy while supporting the important work of law enforcement," the tech giant said.