Chatrie v. United States · ¶81
The facts of this case illustrate why the lack of magisterial oversight is dangerous. When executing steps two and three, law enforcement initially sought unbounded data and account information from all 19 devices identified at step one. See 590 F. Supp. 3d 901, 921 (ED Va. 2022). Nothing in the warrant prevented officers from obtaining this broad set of data; they narrowed the list only because Google insisted on it. The officers eventually settled on requesting data from nine devices at step two, but even this shorter list may have been overbroad. For three of the nine devices, the location data showed the users’ movements to and from sensitive spaces—namely, residences, a school, and a hospital. See id., at 923. Given how it was written, the warrant itself provided no “judicial check” on law enforcement’s determination that probable cause justified this intrusion. Steagald v. United…Read in context ›
slip opinion
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.