This might run afoul of the Carpenter decision, right? It basically held that asking for cell tower location data is a search of the person rather than a subpoena of records.
EDIT: maybe not. This one had a warrant rather than a subpoena. I'd still be interested in the interaction though.
Doubtful, Carpenter was based on the fact that the cell tower location was not a willing transfer of international, but merely a functioning of the cellular technology and so the information was still protected under the 4th amendment requirement for a warrant. In this case, suspect ‘willingly’ transferred that information to Google and there was a warrant request for the information. Although, I suspect that the warrant was more to make it easier to get Google’s compliance than to deal with 4th amendment concerns.
Exactly, the warrant is exactly the mechanism used by our legal system to document the suspension of rights otherwise granted by the fourth amendment.
And it's why I think a lot of the ire here is misdirected. I mean, sure, the police were wrong for asking for this data, but it's easy to see why they wanted it -- it makes their job easier in an obvious way. The real problem here is the judge that granted the warrant.
EDIT: maybe not. This one had a warrant rather than a subpoena. I'd still be interested in the interaction though.