Fifth Circuit has ruled that geofence warrants violate the 4th Amendment

FROM ACE OF SPADES:

Fifth Circuit just ruled that geofence warrants violate 4A. Recall the FBI sought and received a Google geofence warrant on Jan 6, 2021.

"Geofence data" refers to data about what phones were in a certain place. I guess the term comes from the idea that you can mark out a virtual "geofence" around the area you want to surveil, then demand that cell phone carriers turn over the phone data for everyone inside that "geofence."

This was used extensively to surveil, harass, and then prosecute J6 political prisoners.

And a judge has just ruled that such data is protected by the Fourth Amendment, and that warrants to grab the data on everyone inside such a "geofence" is unconstitutional.

Notice he's saying that even with a warrant, grabbing all of this data so promiscuously about thousands of people whose names you don't even know and therefore have no actual reason to suspect of any crime is unconstitutional. He's saying you cannot just get a mass-warrant to invade the privacy of everyone in a place.

Just knowing that a crime was committed somewhere inside a large area is not sufficiently particularized information enough to sustain a warrant.

Note that this case is not about the J6 political prisoners, but such a ruling would be extremely helpful to them, if it's upheld on review by the Supreme Court.

HERE'S A PORTION OF THE RULING: 

Geofence warrants are powerful tools for investigating and deterring crime. The defendants here engaged in a violent robbery--and likely would have gotten away with it, but for this new technology. So I fully recognize that our panel decision today will inevitably hamper legitimate law enforcement interests. But hamstringing the government is the whole point of our Constitution. Our Founders recognized that the government will not always be comprised of publicly-spirited officers--and that even good faith actors can be overcome by the zealous pursuit of legitimate public interests. "If men were angels, no government would be necessary." THE FEDERALIST No. 51, at 349 (J. Cooke ed. 1961). "If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary." Id. But "experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions." Id. It's because of "human nature" that it's "necessary to control the abuses of government." Id.