After a man shot dead In 2019, in front of a Paramount bank, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s detectives turned to Google to help identify suspects.

Through a search warrant, detectives directed the tech giant to provide cell-phone location data for people who were near places the man visited on the day he was killed. With data provided by Google, detectives eventually tracked down two suspects currently in prison on murder charges.

But law enforcement’s use of so-called “geofence warrants” to request Google’s location data also raised concerns that the request violated the suspect’s constitutional rights. This year, California Court of Appeals He upheld the murder conviction, but ruled that the warrant was too broad and could have involved thousands of people, violating the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits unjustified searches and seizures.

The lawsuit, “People vs. Meza,” highlights the central tensions surrounding the explosive use of geofence warrants. Law enforcement leaders see Google’s location data as vital to solving crimes, but civil rights groups fear such warrants would violate the privacy of innocent bystanders.Number of geofence guarantees Google Reports received from U.S. law enforcement agencies increased from 982 in 2018 to 11,554 in 2020, according to the latest data released.

Concerns about the controversial law-enforcement tool grew after the Supreme Court struck down the constitutional right to abortion last year. Because the state has banned or restricted abortion, civil rights organizations She feared that law enforcement could use Google data to figure out whether women were planning to illegally terminate their pregnancies. Even though abortions are still legal in California, proponents fear authorities in states that ban abortion could use geofence warrants to track people coming here for abortions.

Those privacy concerns caught the attention of Rep. Mia Bonta (D-Alameda), who introduced a bill banning writs that force tech companies to reveal the identities of people who may have been in a particular place at a particular time or searched for keywords online. The original version of the bill planned to ban all geofencing warrants, but it was introduced as part of the bill. invoice package It aims to strengthen California as a haven for abortion seekers.

“Frankly, this is a scary moment for us in terms of the amount of information that third parties have access to,” Bonta said in an interview.

The law AB793, privacy advocates, reproductive rights groups, Google, and industry group TechNet. But a strong backlash from law enforcement this year has hampered the effort, as lawmakers struggled to craft a bill that would protect abortion seekers while allowing police to use geofence warrants for criminal investigations.

“It’s become pretty clear that there could be unintended consequences depending on how it’s written,” Bonta said, pledging to focus the bill’s focus on gender-affirming care and access to abortion, aiming for passage next year. “We wanted to make sure we got this absolutely right.”

The bill could change the law passed by voters in 1982 and would require two-thirds support from state legislatures, making it a high hurdle to pass.

Opponents argued that the bill was too broad and hampered law enforcement’s ability to investigate crimes.

Ventura County Prosecutor Michel Contoit, representing the California District Attorney’s Office, said law enforcement officials are not opposed to protecting patients who come to the state for abortion or gender reassignment treatment. But banning all geofence warrants is “real overkill,” she says.

“There are some crimes that I think may never be solved,” she said. “We use them because we think it’s the best way to get what you need in this case.”

Privacy advocates and abortion activists question whether data requests are really necessary because geofence warrants can include information about people who aren’t potential suspects. The Electronic Frontier Foundation called out: Google In 2021, it will resist complying with these controversial warrants. Google announces it collects data about users Location history For advertising and improving company services.

The Sacramento debates formed an unusual alliance between tech giants and privacy advocacy groups. In May, Google sent a letter to lawmakers in support of AB 793. The company added that it will work with law enforcement to narrow down warrants if too much data is requested.

“Most law enforcement requests target one or more specific accounts. Geofences, by contrast, ask for information about users who may have been in a particular location at a particular time.

Last year, a coalition of tech giants, including Google, also new york invoice The bill, which would ban searches for geolocation and keyword data, was not passed by Congress.

Data reported to the California Department of Justice shows that geofence warrants were used in various criminal investigations this year, including a felony hit-and-run case in San Diego and a murder in Riverside. California officials also used geofence warrants to killing the mexican mafia and other crimes.of FBI We turned to Google data to figure out who was inside the Capitol during the Jan. 6, 2021 riots.

Geofence warrants were also used to identify individuals protesting police murder George Floyd’s Minnesota and Jacob Blake in Wisconsin. Sometimes those swept away by them just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. In one case, innocent men in florida In 2019, he became a robbery suspect after riding his bicycle past a home that had been robbed.

District attorneys argue that California law is sufficient to protect people’s digital privacy. A geofence warrant typically involves three steps. First, Google will provide law enforcement with de-identified information based on the geographic region and time period provided in the warrant. Law enforcement agencies will use larger data sets to narrow down the devices they want to investigate before asking Google to provide identifying information such as phone numbers, emails and names, according to an analysis of the bill.

“It’s not just that we ask Google and Google gives us everyone’s information,” said Comtois of the District Lawyers Association. “Only after several stages and convincing a judge at each stage of the probable cause can we obtain identifiable information and names.”

California Police Chief Assn. Did not respond to requests for comment. Numerous law enforcement agencies opposed the bill, including the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department.

Haley Tsukayama, a senior legislative activist at the Electronic Frontier Foundation who promoted the bill, said AB 793 is proposing to ban all geofence warrants because of concerns that a more targeted bill would have loopholes that law enforcement could identify abortion seekers. Narrowing the bill is difficult for several reasons, she said.

“I’m not saying we can’t do it,” she said. “I needed more time than I had left in this session to do that.”