One of them, Gavin Seymour, asked the court to throw the evidence out because it violated the Fourth Amendment’s ban on unreasonable searches and seizures by being overbroad and not being targeted against a specific person suspected of a crime.
But in this case, the trail had run cold and police were seeking a “reverse keyword” warrant for the Google search history in a quest to identify possible suspects.
The state Supreme Court ruled that Seymour had a constitutionally protected privacy interest in his Google search history even though it was just connected with an IP address and not his name.
If dystopian problems emerge, as some fear, the courts stand ready to hear argument regarding how we should rein in law enforcement’s use of rapidly advancing technology.
“At the risk of sounding alarmist, I fear that by upholding this practice, the majority’s ruling today gives constitutional cover to law enforcement seeking unprecedented access to the private lives of individuals not just in Colorado, but across the globe.
A third teen, Dillon Siebert, who was 14 at the time and originally charged as a juvenile, pleaded guilty earlier this year to second-degree murder in adult court under a deal that prosecutors and the defense said balanced his lesser role in planning the fire, his remorse and interest in rehabilitation with the horror of the crime.
The original article contains 783 words, the summary contains 225 words. Saved 71%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!