Remember how I said that as technology advances there are certain cases that you NEED to pay attention to?
For Example
USA
v.
Chatrie
Case No 3:19-cr-00130, EDVA

“the geofence warrant in this case presents an issue of first impression in this district, and in the country”

Have you figured out WHY I’m saying this is a really important case?
Here’s your hint - on first glance Chatrie’s Sept 2019 indictment looks pretty normal. Right?
Like an armed robbery...stay with me...

Sorry here’s Chatrie’s September 2019 Indictment
ECF Paywall

https://ecf.vaed.uscourts.gov/doc1/18919946274

Public Drive https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YVEbrvjAiWlHrjDI9RExhywbxUcxD7aW/view?usp=drivesdk

December 2019 Order - page 1 green box.
This is WHY I am saying you need to pay attention, “geofencing” required Google to turn over data for anyone who was in that area. Sans actual judicial warrant
Get it?
This bring us SERIOUS constitutional rights.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/11Y5dztJaixCFgE1iMqCTyJd6u81HgKlJ/view?usp=drivesdk

The Defendant Oct 2019 Motion to Suppress:
“state police to obtain the cell phone location information of 19 Google users “geofence warrant “is an unlawful and unconstitutional general warrant that is both overbroad and lacks the particularity required by the Fourth Amendment,”

This is the October 2019 Motion to Suppress

Think about it, what VSP did is they used a massive “data-geolocation” drag net. Identified 19 Google users who happened to “be near” the bank that was robbed. That should be alarming to all of us. https://drive.google.com/file/d/14C8jsJcyjYriZr-Rz5TmoYJWS0yK9jnK/view?usp=drivesdk

Thereafter the Court ordered the Government and Google to file the affidavit, probable cause warrant and other documents related to the VSP “geofence” warrant

The Court Ordered the Govt & Google to file the supporting documents of the “geofence” warrant.
I do NOT condone doxing, I trust you’ll use the appropriate desecration.
This is the supporting Doc (# 54)
Google gave VSP geo-location data of 19 Google Users https://drive.google.com/file/d/1D2hm6rJ-l1M3Cm742k5uK28QH5t-HUTR/view?usp=drivesdk

Which now brings us FULL circle.
The reason I think you should pay attention here is if you have a smart phone depending on how the Court rules your data could be swept up without your consent or knowledge. Each phone has an IMEI # so “anonymized information,” is utter bullshit.

Court held oral arguments on Jan 21st & Feb 20 2020 hearing ordered on the Defendant’s Motion to Suppress the Govt’s data from geofencing
Do NOT conflate that as me supporting the Defendant, this is a civil rights & constitutional issue and PRIVACY
/fin https://drive.google.com/file/d/14jLAsNXhrgG9fILNmfnmzGtAVzCIrR-F/view?usp=drivesdk

This case is a case of “first impression” not only in the EDVA BUT nationwide

Given the DJT Admin & Coronavirus & Google you really need to think twice about willingly giving Google you PII, especially medical
https://ecf.vaed.uscourts.gov/doc1/189110327695
Public Drive
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dOckk5lcW-7j6kWUXBaR7WghjNlZbuOT/view?usp=drivesdk

DJT Admin, Google & CV-19
THIS CASE MATTERS
Google Location History (LH) & GeoFencing declaration;
“data through the “Timeline” feature of Google Maps, which operates as a journal...user’s LH data to infer semantic location information such as place visit”
https://ecf.vaed.uscourts.gov/doc1/189010337018?caseid=453993

Those that have followed me for any period of time, know that if I say “PAY attention” = IMPORTANT
GEOFENCING
“..users may also opt into a separate service called Web & App Activity... generate a location radius that accurately captures ..roughly 68% of users“
See purple boxes

Google’s LH product mgr’s declaration.
The defendant argued the Govt GeoFence warrant served on Google was likely unlawful & overly broad. To wit Google admits their 68% accuracy rate means they’ve turned over LH of people in the vicinity of a “crime”
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yV-T2iLuM5K6GSoS5tRoLnt_W4W-wrGM/view?usp=drivesdk

So let me get this straight, here Google admits that the geofencing warrant(s) can sweep up individuals who are NOT suspects but happened to be in the vicinity of the crime. Page 4 paragraph 13 - exactly what civil liberty groups warned & feared.
https://ecf.vaed.uscourts.gov/doc1/189110337019

Again not to belabor the point, it’s there in black and white in Google’s declaration:

“requested information about Google accounts associated with devices that reported a location located within a 150-meter radius around a specified latitude and longitude coordination...”

Notice how Google pushed back?
“Google received an email from Detective Hylton
requesting additional location data and subscriber information for all 19 device numbers produced in step1...9 devices step 2... requesting subscriber information (i.e., step 3) on 3 device numbers”

WHY this is important?
If you were 1 of 19 people who happened to be within a 150 meter radius bank, located in Richmond, VA between 4:20 PM and 5:20PM on March 20, 2019 some of your data Google sent to law enforcement
That’s a civil liberties issue /fin https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jlrxbTmbEQQTTNtXDxTM_WYJOXVxvs6S/view?usp=drivesdk

We FINALLY have an update
I need to be really clear here, in no way am I defending Defendant CHATRIE.
I know this is nuanced and a lot of you might not fully understand why I’m unusually obsessed about this case.
It is likely one of the MOST important cases involving data privacy

This case is in FACT a
case of first impression
in the legal community that actually means something. And it’s undeniably important because until USA v CHATRIE no other Fed District Court has address the complicated “geofencing” & it’s incredibly complex
I’ve done my best to KISS

So first up on May 13, 2020 the Court issued this Order, granting Defendant CHATRIE until May 22, 2020 to file any supplemental brief concerning the “Geofencing” warrant & evidence
https://ecf.vaed.uscourts.gov/doc1/189110452190

Accordingly Defendant CHATRIE filed his supplemental brief late yesterday.
It will cost you $3.00 to pull it down or you can give me a few minutes to fully read his brief & upload it to a public drive, thereby saving you $3.00 but this case is IMPORTANT
https://ecf.vaed.uscourts.gov/doc1/189010474698?caseid=453993

I’m going to explain this in quasi-legalese;
this case is about Constitutional Rights, data privacy, LEO & Big Tech locking horns over the prior

I offer ZERO opinion about CHATRIE’s guilt or innocence. It’s not my place
Conversely I’ll focus on the broad scope & civil liberties

FACT- LEO did not have a suspect
FACT - they sought a “geofencing warrant” to be served on Google
FACT - Google informed LEO that they had/have a 3 step process.
You’ll want to reread the previous Google Declarations - it’s fascinating https://twitter.com/File411/status/1241077738464776193?s=20

Defendant CHATRIE’s position has never changed;
the “geofencing warrant” was overly broad
IMO - I think he’s made a solid argument on that point.
LEO demanded Google filter millions of users and then filter that data down to 19 “devices” +/- 1 HOUR & proximity
Read page 3 closely

“..government obtained a warrant in this case, it did not obtain one for Mr. Chatrie’s Location History data. In fact, it did not seek anyone’s data in particular. Rather, the government compelled Google to search everyone’s data in order to develop an investigative lead”
Get it?

Again to reiterate in NO way am I defending Defendant CHATRIE
What I am defending are facts, constitutional rights, data privacy. Indeed the overly broad warrant compelled Google to produce data on 19 devices of which 18 had NOTHING to do with the robbery, beyond time & proximity

during the Course of this case, google disclosed it wasn’t just 19 devices
“Google now explains, the geofence search involved not just 19 users near the bank, but “roughly one-third of active Google users...”
Read the FOOTNOTES- trust me on that;
1/3 of google users= 660 Million

In Google’s two declarations;
they used numerous data sources & blend them;
“88% of the coordinates at issue were derived from Wi-Fi signals, as opposed to GPS. Id. None were derived from Bluetooth or cell phone tower data”
Read Pages 8 & 9 CLOSELY

Defendant primary argument:

“warrant was invalid because it was a general warrant, fatally overbroad and devoid of particularity...therefore impermissible under the Fourth Amendment” hence “void ab initio”
look at the black box on page 12 - do you get why this case is IMPORTANT?

I went ahead and uploaded Defendant CHATRIE’s supplemental motion to Suppress ALL evidence obtained via the “geofencing” warrant.
I can not emphasize how important this case is - beyond it’s a case of 1st impression. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1y8pMCgcarYxXLCxau1LHTH4nmyw30dKi/view?usp=drivesdk

Also See Carpenter v USA
(Defendant CHATRIE heavily relies on this 2018 SCOTUS Ruling) Again I’m not defending him or his argument what I am defending are our civil rights, data privacy & hopefully educating you on why this case matters, a lot
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2017/16-402

only foolish people “guess” how a Court will rule.
The Defendant does construct a persuasive argument re Google’s TOS;

“Google location records are qualitatively different from the business records to which the third-party doctrine traditionally applies.”
Remember ALT = embedded

The interesting part of the Defendant’s 2nd argument is Google’s own TOS are extraordinarily difficult to understand and “opting OUT” isn’t as readily available as “opting in” that he had a presumption of privacy
Do you read all of your TOS? Probably not https://drive.google.com/file/d/1y8pMCgcarYxXLCxau1LHTH4nmyw30dKi/view?usp=drivesdk

“Google in its amicus brief and affidavits only confirm that the warrant in this case was uniquely overbroad and so lacking in particularity that it can only be described as the
digital equivalent of an impermissible general warrant”

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1y8pMCgcarYxXLCxau1LHTH4nmyw30dKi/view?usp=drivesdk

Of the 19 devices, 5 were likely NEVER in the radius
“...three-step, back-and-forth process with the
recipient of a warrant is not a substitute for particularizing that warrant at the outset. Instead, it is
an unconstitutional delegation of discretion to the executing officers”

I’m finding it really difficult to keep my yapper zipped;

“At no point during this three-step process did the government return to the magistrate to seek further authorization...”

Not that my opinion matters here but this is solid & persuasive brief
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1y8pMCgcarYxXLCxau1LHTH4nmyw30dKi/view?usp=drivesdk