April 27, 2026 • 17 mins
On the Jim Colbert Show Attorney "Friendly" Ray Traendly of TK Law discusses the Supreme Court's consideration of the legalities of law enforcement agencies using cellular location data to obtain search warrants in investigations.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Welcome back.
Speaker 2 (00:00):
I'm Jim the very lovely and very wanted here Janna
from XL one of Points.
Speaker 1 (00:07):
Stop it, Jack.
Speaker 3 (00:08):
You're the one who said very wanted here over here.
Speaker 1 (00:11):
It was a joke.
Speaker 2 (00:12):
I was saying, I misdeb and I can't wait for
her to get back. And then she looks at me,
she goes, I'm right here, dude.
Speaker 3 (00:17):
Yeah, it isn't exactly how you said it, though, If
something have to do at least once a week, I'm
sorry about Jim. That's okay. He was right about the
gummy bears.
Speaker 2 (00:27):
Okay, thanks, appreciate that Jack is here as well, and
every single Monday around this time, our good friend.
Speaker 1 (00:32):
You've already heard him talk.
Speaker 2 (00:33):
Ray Trentley drops by TK Law one firm for life
dot Com offices right there announcement and downtown to Land
as well.
Speaker 1 (00:39):
Good laugh for Ray Trentley.
Speaker 2 (00:41):
Guys personal injury attorney doing a number of things here
in Central Florida. Whether it's an injury, a divorce, and
a state planning, whatever the case may be. These guys
have somebody in their quiver that can handle that for you.
Speaker 3 (00:54):
I'm also willing to come in on Monday and give
you a hard time.
Speaker 1 (00:57):
Yeah, yeah, oh what happened? What I do?
Speaker 3 (00:59):
I just give everybody O time today, you give her back.
I like to stand up for people and fight for them.
That's what I try to do.
Speaker 1 (01:08):
How was your How was your weekend? Buddy?
Speaker 3 (01:10):
Ooh? My weekend was an interesting weekend? So, uh, in general,
my life is pretty much dictated by my children, and uh.
I thought there's a possibility that we were going to
get some uh some alone time maybe one day this weekend.
But that did not happen. I had I had fever
and chills and all the kid issues that you can
(01:33):
imagine that I don't really want to stay on the air,
but sick kids. Tried separating them all over the house
anywhere when you were close to your brother. That kind
of thing didn't happen, so we survived.
Speaker 2 (01:44):
Yeah, that's all right, and it's going around. I'm telling
you that the thing that I had me down for
three days was brutally.
Speaker 3 (01:49):
I instantly blamed you. Honestly, my kids had never seen you.
I instantly blamed you.
Speaker 1 (01:56):
A lot of people scapegoat you're perfectly good.
Speaker 3 (01:58):
There was some overlapping symptoms. I said, you know what,
I know exactly where this came super funny.
Speaker 2 (02:03):
Like I said, Ray is an attorney here in Orlando
dealing with a number of issues, whether it be whether
you've been injured, you have a state you need to
get settled. He's helped me from everything from a real
estate matter just by writing a letter to some action
for my daughter that we had a situation that was
real gnarly and we didn't know how to handle it
any handle it as well. So anything under the roof
my man can get down for you, no question whatsoever. Absolutely,
(02:26):
And you know, when you came in, I always asked,
you know, what are we talking about today? And we
didn't get a chance to talk this afternoon before. But
when you walked in, you mentioned this Fourth Amendment case
and just so happened. I read it today and I
couldn't figure out what the hell was going on. It
had something to do with police forces want to get
access to your cell data if they're looking for you
(02:48):
or something.
Speaker 3 (02:49):
Ith let's talk about it. So one, it's not even
they want to get it, they get it. They get
access to all of this data. And so here's how
that happens. We're gonna say that a crime is committed
here at iHeart Radio and.
Speaker 2 (03:01):
Janice stealing again from the company again.
Speaker 3 (03:05):
Yeah, let me where's are worth it? Though?
Speaker 1 (03:08):
Yeah? People are this.
Speaker 2 (03:09):
She rifles through all the desks of the sales reps
after hours every single day, get started.
Speaker 3 (03:15):
This is and somebody ends up in handcuffs and then
I gotta get a fut that's right, geo. So what
it's up happening is U there's a a a rash
of gummy bear disappearances, and uh, somebody calls the cops.
Cops say, we don't know exactly who it was, but
we have a general idea of the time of which
it occurred, in the location of which it occurred. So
(03:36):
what they do is they apply for these geo fencing warrants.
Because Google won't just divulge your information, your your your
geographic location without a warrant, so they gotta get a warrant.
So they get these geo fencing warrants, and they say, Okay,
we're gonna put a pin here on iHeartRadio. We're gonna
go anywhere within I'll say, one hundred and fifty feet
from the building, and we want any cell phone data
(03:59):
that's been pinging at this time or this timeframe. We
want all that data. We want to know what devices
are in that area so at that time, so we
know the crime was committed between five and six. They
can drop a pin on the building and they can say,
we want all the information from anybody that came within
the circle for the last hour. That's right. And so
they don't know who they're looking for. They have no
(04:20):
identifying information. They just say we want information from that
timeframe and that general location. Then they get let's say,
let's say they get four phones. So they get four phones.
They're opinion in this and they say, you know what,
Jimmy kind of looks like the guy that somebody said
that they saw rifling around these desks and looking for
gummy bears. So they'll say, we want more information. We
(04:43):
want more information from his phone. So they'll get a
news new warrant for your phone specifically, and then they'll
go all the data through your phone, and then that's
when they might find evidence of the crime that you've committed.
That they will, Oh, absolutely they will. I don't know
why he said all this stuff on the air. Yeah,
hours and hours of record.
Speaker 2 (05:01):
And if there's anything I love doing, it's recording myself
committing crimes and then admitting to it on the air.
Speaker 1 (05:06):
Sure, yeah, who wouldn't do that? Uh, dumb not to.
Speaker 3 (05:09):
So so then that happens, and then they arrest the
person and and now there's a case for the United
States Supreme Court on this exact issue. There is a
person that was within a geographic location of a one
of those cash advance loan places, uh, that was robbed,
and they pulled this guy's data, they find that, you know,
(05:30):
he was in the area at the time. They go
through his phone, they find some other evidence of crime,
and now they've arrested him.
Speaker 2 (05:37):
Okay, was the crime that they found evidence of part
of the crime that they were looking for?
Speaker 3 (05:41):
Yes, okay, it was. Okay the messages.
Speaker 2 (05:44):
You know, if they get a warrant for that and
they start ripping through your phone and see that you
got like a pound of coke at your house and
you're cutting it up, they can't do anything for that, right, Uh,
because they didn't get the warrant.
Speaker 1 (05:55):
Specifically for that.
Speaker 3 (05:56):
Correct. I see I'm tracking.
Speaker 2 (05:58):
Because See that's the thing that's kind of weird for me.
When you start throwing this wild ass net out there.
Now you have access to the general public's information and
you're looking for a needle in a haystack. But in
that same sense, now you're rolling through all my personal
data looking for a needle in a haystack when you
have no evidence I've committed a crime at all, and.
Speaker 3 (06:15):
You're going to be an innocent people. I mean, the
rest of us on the show are innocence And so
they've got all of our data too, because we were
also in your geographic area when they launched this geo fence.
Speaker 2 (06:27):
In this in the in the final the fourth amendent
is the search and seizure thing?
Speaker 3 (06:31):
Is that the one? Yeah?
Speaker 1 (06:32):
So what so?
Speaker 3 (06:34):
So normally I warrant requires specificity. We need some details
about what the warrant is searching for and why and
and and the why becomes really important as a part
of this. You know, we can't just you know, Jack
looked at me funny and when I was mentioning how
great the Dolphins draft was. I can't continue to get
a warrant to arrest him for that. Yeah, we need
(06:56):
some more details.
Speaker 2 (06:58):
But we can let me ask you what this is. Okay,
So let's say you were use the same thing. You
drop the pen here and we go and the witness says, well,
I think I saw them pull off in a gray sedan. Okay, right,
So if they were to pull all the data from
everybody who came in that area, couldn't they isolate it
down just to that and maybe find that and not
(07:18):
have to go through every single aspect of the data.
And it's access to photos and everything everything.
Speaker 3 (07:25):
So so, dude.
Speaker 1 (07:26):
That is that's such a slippery that is crazy.
Speaker 3 (07:29):
That's the problem. That's why we have the constitution. So
you know, your scenario is a little bit different in
that we have additional identifying information before they apply for
this warrant.
Speaker 1 (07:38):
Yeah, because the one you're talking about, there's nothing.
Speaker 3 (07:40):
There's nothing right, We're just need you use the proper analogy.
It's a net. It's a large net that they cast.
Speaker 1 (07:48):
You know.
Speaker 3 (07:49):
The some of the terminology that was used in the
oral arguments today was it's a drag net, you know,
and we might we might get some of the right fish,
we might get some of the wrong fish.
Speaker 1 (07:58):
We don't know.
Speaker 3 (07:59):
We'll find out.
Speaker 2 (08:00):
Does it have to do with severity of the crime.
Do they only use this in situations where the crime
is really severe? Drug dealing, murder, something like that kidnapping
or is it for all?
Speaker 3 (08:09):
All all crimes are up I mean, I mean there's
no requirement that is, you know, for murder. We have
a different set of constitutional rules. It's supposed to be
we played by the same rules no matter what the
issue is. And so, you know, I agree with what
you said, Jen, this is a slippery slope. This is
where you open the door and you open the door,
open door's box and you can't put it back in.
(08:30):
And that's what unfortunately happened to this person. And so
we have some cases from like the early twenty seventeen
twenty nineteen timeframe where we saw some of these geo
fencing cases and where we said, well, you need a warrant.
You can't just apply for it and get it and
not and not have a warrant like you need to
have a warrant for it. So we figured that out
and then we've now are determining how much specificity is
(08:53):
required in that warrant. So the fact that they had
a warrant is better than not having a warrant, But
is it specific enough to the people that we believe
are are the ones who perpetrated the crime? And I
think there's a lot of things that we look at
in the law that we need some corroborating evidence of
the crime outside of let's just say a confession, right,
(09:14):
we need some additional corroborating evidence of that. And so
why wouldn't we require that before we allow this warrant
that you know, potentially you know, criminates for the rest
of us, for the additional crimes that we didn't commit.
Speaker 2 (09:26):
But this sounds like the fifties when they'd be like,
you know, give me round up the usual suspects, you know,
roll all the known criminals through here, so we can
see if we can get one of these people identified
into something.
Speaker 3 (09:34):
But law enforcement is cyclical like that, right, We do
see these trends in the law, and sometimes you know,
we go to stings and things like that because some
of the sophisticated ways that we arrest the people isn't
necessary or maybe not as effective. And so we see
that the secles law enforcement.
Speaker 2 (09:51):
Do we know how more effective it is when they
use the geo fencing when it comes to making credible
arrests as opposed to not to I mean, because you
have to imagine that's going to be argued, right, I mean,
when you get you're arguing this in front of the
Supreme Court, and the court is going to have to
make a determination of whether or not they're violating the
Fourth Amendment. Sure, and once they do, if they do
decide that's the case, they will shut this tool down federally, right,
(10:14):
I mean, that's the whole idea.
Speaker 3 (10:15):
And then it trickles down to all the states right,
just the same way though.
Speaker 4 (10:20):
I mean, it's it's like the shiny new tool in
the toolbox, like is geo fencing? Like you hear it
all the time now with all my true crime podcast
right right right, And you know, if it gets shut down,
isn't there just a work around?
Speaker 3 (10:32):
So there might be, and that's part of actually interesting.
You don't really see a lot of the tech companies
providing briefs on this stuff. Google submitted a brief which
I found very interesting, and I was like, I gotta
read this because you know, to your point, technology is
constantly evolving, and so even the way these warrants that
were applied for and obtained were working, Google no longer
(10:55):
stores the data like this in order that would be
an effective way for them to use this. So it's
already changed. Right, in the five years it's taken for
it to go from state court to you know, from
state trial court to the appellate court to now the
Supreme Court, the technology has already changed. Which presents an
even more interesting component to this, which is there's a
(11:17):
Supreme Court and they're not supposed to generally adjust issues
that are not in front of them or before them
at that moment, but they take a more broad approach
and how they're going to look at this if they
are going to make a restriction because their technology is
constantly evolving, or is it going to be limited to
just this piece of technology and how they're us utilizing
it at this current juncture.
Speaker 2 (11:36):
I mean, there's no way this is going to hold.
I mean, it is a direct vial siting here while
you're talking about this is a direct violation of the
fourth of Amendment. They are accessing your information without your
for one thing, without a determination that you've actually even
committed a crime. Sure, because you get again, like you're saying,
you could be an innocent guy walking in and out
of this building for a day of business and you're
called up in this Now they have access to your
(11:58):
internal information and personal information. Then You're putting the onus
of trust on the analysts that are that are dealing
with that information, and we don't know how accurate or
how savvy or savory those people are. Sure, So you're
putting everyone's information, the most sensitive information, in the hands
of people that may not know how to treat it.
That is a direct violation of your Fourth Amendment right.
Speaker 3 (12:20):
All because you're within a certain distance from this STA.
Speaker 1 (12:23):
But I don't care why or where. No.
Speaker 2 (12:25):
I know as a US citizen, I'm protected by the Constitution.
You cannot just kick in my door theoretically and look
to my house because you think something happened, or you
you're sure that I was in the area and when
this crime went down, you got to do better than.
Speaker 3 (12:38):
That you got would also be a constitutional violation.
Speaker 2 (12:40):
Yeah, direct warrant saying I need access to your phone
because we know for a fact, bet whether it be
a witness, whether it be a camera shot, whether it
be something that you are the ID or a tag reader,
that you're the person right flip.
Speaker 4 (12:55):
Side of that, Go ahead, God forbid your child get
kidnapped and the geotract who was at the mall at
that time?
Speaker 3 (13:02):
You want that information? That's not a bad point. But
I think again, you know, like you said, it's a
slippery slope.
Speaker 4 (13:10):
Do you kind of sign away your rights anyways when
you when you sign into.
Speaker 1 (13:13):
Google and no, you don't sign away You're right, No, no, no,
the people.
Speaker 3 (13:17):
Like you know you allow us to use your data
and location.
Speaker 5 (13:20):
Yeah, you are definitely giving up privacy when you make
these agreements, on these user agreements that none of us read.
Speaker 2 (13:26):
We just accept because we want to use whatever it is.
But because I want to use Google doesn't mean I
want to go to jail.
Speaker 5 (13:32):
No, not that you want to go to jail, but
could they handle list just like you would in a
situation where there's a surveillance camera, if you are in
an area, you're going to be on camera. They're going
to be able to see you and decide whether you
are relevant to this situation or not.
Speaker 2 (13:46):
But seeing your image and pairing that up with a
witness's statement is different than rolling through your photos, dude,
or rolling through your phone and reading your text your
personal information.
Speaker 5 (13:56):
Well, going that far, but using the net to sit
if you pinged in the area, and then it would
it could warrant further investigation because you were in this
place at that time.
Speaker 3 (14:11):
Well, I think the idea too is what is meant
to be private and what's not meant to be private?
Speaker 1 (14:16):
Right?
Speaker 3 (14:16):
So I think to Jim's point is I don't intend
on all my information on my phone to be used
against me or public material. Whereas if I'm walking through
a parking lot and a camera catches me, you know,
I've got no reasonable expectation of privacy in public. And
so I do think that there's you know, I think
(14:37):
there's something to be said about there should be some
probable cause before you start rifling through all of my
what I would interpret as private.
Speaker 5 (14:46):
But mel could cell phone providers, could telecoms say that
these phone numbers were people who were in the area,
And then at that point you have to do the
detective work to get probable costs to extend that further.
So you're saying, is cut it off after that first point? Yeah,
(15:06):
because then it's nothing more than a surveillance camera identifying
people in an area.
Speaker 3 (15:11):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (15:11):
So I just got a text here it says nineteen
years as a law enforcement officer, most with investigations not true.
Pen Trap and trace does not lend all phone info.
Location is what we're looking for who was at that
location and when and the number dialed. Although also this
is utilized from major crimes, not a misdemeanor. That's what
(15:32):
I was asking earlier is do they only employ this
when it's like a felony of major charge because of
the protection of the general community, not somebody like shoplifting
from a dollar general.
Speaker 3 (15:42):
You know, Well, so what I was reading in the
brief specifically, I dealt with what you had asked about,
which is they had access to the specific data on
the phone. Oh well, so I know that the first
application for the warrant goes through and gets the geographic
location who's in this area, then they apply for a
followup warrants. Was they get the access to the phone,
(16:04):
And that's why I think, I mean, that's a part
of the problem.
Speaker 2 (16:07):
But you could see though, Ray like, if let's say,
you know, let's say somebody came in and robbed somebody
in this building and then ran out. Sure, and a
witness on the other set other side said, you know, hey,
the guy looked like a white male, probably between five
eight and six feet tall, and he got into a
gray truck and sped off. Now, if you threw out
your net there and you kind of looked at the
(16:27):
information and you just looked at one of those and
one of them. As you're rolling through it, you notice, well,
there's Jim Colbert. He's a fifty eight year old white
male between five eight and six feet tall. So we
can go talk to him just based on his height,
hair color and caught, you know, and skin color. Like
you could do that without like really hopping into somebody's
phone and start digging through for other information like did
he just buy a gun? Or did he did he
(16:49):
did he text somebody about this crime or something?
Speaker 1 (16:51):
You know?
Speaker 2 (16:52):
Yeah, interesting, all right four seven nine one six four
one text us at seven seven zero three one say
let brak will mc can do a few more minutes
with raying the hell out of here on a Monday
Welcome back.
Speaker 2 (00:00):
I'm Jim the very lovely and very wanted here Janna
from XL one of Points.
Speaker 1 (00:07):
Stop it, Jack.
Speaker 3 (00:08):
You're the one who said very wanted here over here.
Speaker 1 (00:11):
It was a joke.
Speaker 2 (00:12):
I was saying, I misdeb and I can't wait for
her to get back. And then she looks at me,
she goes, I'm right here, dude.
Speaker 3 (00:17):
Yeah, it isn't exactly how you said it, though, If
something have to do at least once a week, I'm
sorry about Jim. That's okay. He was right about the
gummy bears.
Speaker 2 (00:27):
Okay, thanks, appreciate that Jack is here as well, and
every single Monday around this time, our good friend.
Speaker 1 (00:32):
You've already heard him talk.
Speaker 2 (00:33):
Ray Trentley drops by TK Law one firm for life
dot Com offices right there announcement and downtown to Land
as well.
Speaker 1 (00:39):
Good laugh for Ray Trentley.
Speaker 2 (00:41):
Guys personal injury attorney doing a number of things here
in Central Florida. Whether it's an injury, a divorce, and
a state planning, whatever the case may be. These guys
have somebody in their quiver that can handle that for you.
Speaker 3 (00:54):
I'm also willing to come in on Monday and give
you a hard time.
Speaker 1 (00:57):
Yeah, yeah, oh what happened? What I do?
Speaker 3 (00:59):
I just give everybody O time today, you give her back.
I like to stand up for people and fight for them.
That's what I try to do.
Speaker 1 (01:08):
How was your How was your weekend? Buddy?
Speaker 3 (01:10):
Ooh? My weekend was an interesting weekend? So, uh, in general,
my life is pretty much dictated by my children, and uh.
I thought there's a possibility that we were going to
get some uh some alone time maybe one day this weekend.
But that did not happen. I had I had fever
and chills and all the kid issues that you can
(01:33):
imagine that I don't really want to stay on the air,
but sick kids. Tried separating them all over the house
anywhere when you were close to your brother. That kind
of thing didn't happen, so we survived.
Speaker 2 (01:44):
Yeah, that's all right, and it's going around. I'm telling
you that the thing that I had me down for
three days was brutally.
Speaker 3 (01:49):
I instantly blamed you. Honestly, my kids had never seen you.
I instantly blamed you.
Speaker 1 (01:56):
A lot of people scapegoat you're perfectly good.
Speaker 3 (01:58):
There was some overlapping symptoms. I said, you know what,
I know exactly where this came super funny.
Speaker 2 (02:03):
Like I said, Ray is an attorney here in Orlando
dealing with a number of issues, whether it be whether
you've been injured, you have a state you need to
get settled. He's helped me from everything from a real
estate matter just by writing a letter to some action
for my daughter that we had a situation that was
real gnarly and we didn't know how to handle it
any handle it as well. So anything under the roof
my man can get down for you, no question whatsoever. Absolutely,
(02:26):
And you know, when you came in, I always asked,
you know, what are we talking about today? And we
didn't get a chance to talk this afternoon before. But
when you walked in, you mentioned this Fourth Amendment case
and just so happened. I read it today and I
couldn't figure out what the hell was going on. It
had something to do with police forces want to get
access to your cell data if they're looking for you
(02:48):
or something.
Speaker 3 (02:49):
Ith let's talk about it. So one, it's not even
they want to get it, they get it. They get
access to all of this data. And so here's how
that happens. We're gonna say that a crime is committed
here at iHeart Radio and.
Speaker 2 (03:01):
Janice stealing again from the company again.
Speaker 3 (03:05):
Yeah, let me where's are worth it? Though?
Speaker 1 (03:08):
Yeah? People are this.
Speaker 2 (03:09):
She rifles through all the desks of the sales reps
after hours every single day, get started.
Speaker 3 (03:15):
This is and somebody ends up in handcuffs and then
I gotta get a fut that's right, geo. So what
it's up happening is U there's a a a rash
of gummy bear disappearances, and uh, somebody calls the cops.
Cops say, we don't know exactly who it was, but
we have a general idea of the time of which
it occurred, in the location of which it occurred. So
(03:36):
what they do is they apply for these geo fencing warrants.
Because Google won't just divulge your information, your your your
geographic location without a warrant, so they gotta get a warrant.
So they get these geo fencing warrants, and they say, Okay,
we're gonna put a pin here on iHeartRadio. We're gonna
go anywhere within I'll say, one hundred and fifty feet
from the building, and we want any cell phone data
(03:59):
that's been pinging at this time or this timeframe. We
want all that data. We want to know what devices
are in that area so at that time, so we
know the crime was committed between five and six. They
can drop a pin on the building and they can say,
we want all the information from anybody that came within
the circle for the last hour. That's right. And so
they don't know who they're looking for. They have no
(04:20):
identifying information. They just say we want information from that
timeframe and that general location. Then they get let's say,
let's say they get four phones. So they get four phones.
They're opinion in this and they say, you know what,
Jimmy kind of looks like the guy that somebody said
that they saw rifling around these desks and looking for
gummy bears. So they'll say, we want more information. We
(04:43):
want more information from his phone. So they'll get a
news new warrant for your phone specifically, and then they'll
go all the data through your phone, and then that's
when they might find evidence of the crime that you've committed.
That they will, Oh, absolutely they will. I don't know
why he said all this stuff on the air. Yeah,
hours and hours of record.
Speaker 2 (05:01):
And if there's anything I love doing, it's recording myself
committing crimes and then admitting to it on the air.
Speaker 1 (05:06):
Sure, yeah, who wouldn't do that? Uh, dumb not to.
Speaker 3 (05:09):
So so then that happens, and then they arrest the
person and and now there's a case for the United
States Supreme Court on this exact issue. There is a
person that was within a geographic location of a one
of those cash advance loan places, uh, that was robbed,
and they pulled this guy's data, they find that, you know,
(05:30):
he was in the area at the time. They go
through his phone, they find some other evidence of crime,
and now they've arrested him.
Speaker 2 (05:37):
Okay, was the crime that they found evidence of part
of the crime that they were looking for?
Speaker 3 (05:41):
Yes, okay, it was. Okay the messages.
Speaker 2 (05:44):
You know, if they get a warrant for that and
they start ripping through your phone and see that you
got like a pound of coke at your house and
you're cutting it up, they can't do anything for that, right, Uh,
because they didn't get the warrant.
Speaker 1 (05:55):
Specifically for that.
Speaker 3 (05:56):
Correct. I see I'm tracking.
Speaker 2 (05:58):
Because See that's the thing that's kind of weird for me.
When you start throwing this wild ass net out there.
Now you have access to the general public's information and
you're looking for a needle in a haystack. But in
that same sense, now you're rolling through all my personal
data looking for a needle in a haystack when you
have no evidence I've committed a crime at all, and.
Speaker 3 (06:15):
You're going to be an innocent people. I mean, the
rest of us on the show are innocence And so
they've got all of our data too, because we were
also in your geographic area when they launched this geo fence.
Speaker 2 (06:27):
In this in the in the final the fourth amendent
is the search and seizure thing?
Speaker 3 (06:31):
Is that the one? Yeah?
Speaker 1 (06:32):
So what so?
Speaker 3 (06:34):
So normally I warrant requires specificity. We need some details
about what the warrant is searching for and why and
and and the why becomes really important as a part
of this. You know, we can't just you know, Jack
looked at me funny and when I was mentioning how
great the Dolphins draft was. I can't continue to get
a warrant to arrest him for that. Yeah, we need
(06:56):
some more details.
Speaker 2 (06:58):
But we can let me ask you what this is. Okay,
So let's say you were use the same thing. You
drop the pen here and we go and the witness says, well,
I think I saw them pull off in a gray sedan. Okay, right,
So if they were to pull all the data from
everybody who came in that area, couldn't they isolate it
down just to that and maybe find that and not
(07:18):
have to go through every single aspect of the data.
And it's access to photos and everything everything.
Speaker 3 (07:25):
So so, dude.
Speaker 1 (07:26):
That is that's such a slippery that is crazy.
Speaker 3 (07:29):
That's the problem. That's why we have the constitution. So
you know, your scenario is a little bit different in
that we have additional identifying information before they apply for
this warrant.
Speaker 1 (07:38):
Yeah, because the one you're talking about, there's nothing.
Speaker 3 (07:40):
There's nothing right, We're just need you use the proper analogy.
It's a net. It's a large net that they cast.
Speaker 1 (07:48):
You know.
Speaker 3 (07:49):
The some of the terminology that was used in the
oral arguments today was it's a drag net, you know,
and we might we might get some of the right fish,
we might get some of the wrong fish.
Speaker 1 (07:58):
We don't know.
Speaker 3 (07:59):
We'll find out.
Speaker 2 (08:00):
Does it have to do with severity of the crime.
Do they only use this in situations where the crime
is really severe? Drug dealing, murder, something like that kidnapping
or is it for all?
Speaker 3 (08:09):
All all crimes are up I mean, I mean there's
no requirement that is, you know, for murder. We have
a different set of constitutional rules. It's supposed to be
we played by the same rules no matter what the
issue is. And so, you know, I agree with what
you said, Jen, this is a slippery slope. This is
where you open the door and you open the door,
open door's box and you can't put it back in.
(08:30):
And that's what unfortunately happened to this person. And so
we have some cases from like the early twenty seventeen
twenty nineteen timeframe where we saw some of these geo
fencing cases and where we said, well, you need a warrant.
You can't just apply for it and get it and
not and not have a warrant like you need to
have a warrant for it. So we figured that out
and then we've now are determining how much specificity is
(08:53):
required in that warrant. So the fact that they had
a warrant is better than not having a warrant, But
is it specific enough to the people that we believe
are are the ones who perpetrated the crime? And I
think there's a lot of things that we look at
in the law that we need some corroborating evidence of
the crime outside of let's just say a confession, right,
(09:14):
we need some additional corroborating evidence of that. And so
why wouldn't we require that before we allow this warrant
that you know, potentially you know, criminates for the rest
of us, for the additional crimes that we didn't commit.
Speaker 2 (09:26):
But this sounds like the fifties when they'd be like,
you know, give me round up the usual suspects, you know,
roll all the known criminals through here, so we can
see if we can get one of these people identified
into something.
Speaker 3 (09:34):
But law enforcement is cyclical like that, right, We do
see these trends in the law, and sometimes you know,
we go to stings and things like that because some
of the sophisticated ways that we arrest the people isn't
necessary or maybe not as effective. And so we see
that the secles law enforcement.
Speaker 2 (09:51):
Do we know how more effective it is when they
use the geo fencing when it comes to making credible
arrests as opposed to not to I mean, because you
have to imagine that's going to be argued, right, I mean,
when you get you're arguing this in front of the
Supreme Court, and the court is going to have to
make a determination of whether or not they're violating the
Fourth Amendment. Sure, and once they do, if they do
decide that's the case, they will shut this tool down federally, right,
(10:14):
I mean, that's the whole idea.
Speaker 3 (10:15):
And then it trickles down to all the states right,
just the same way though.
Speaker 4 (10:20):
I mean, it's it's like the shiny new tool in
the toolbox, like is geo fencing? Like you hear it
all the time now with all my true crime podcast
right right right, And you know, if it gets shut down,
isn't there just a work around?
Speaker 3 (10:32):
So there might be, and that's part of actually interesting.
You don't really see a lot of the tech companies
providing briefs on this stuff. Google submitted a brief which
I found very interesting, and I was like, I gotta
read this because you know, to your point, technology is
constantly evolving, and so even the way these warrants that
were applied for and obtained were working, Google no longer
(10:55):
stores the data like this in order that would be
an effective way for them to use this. So it's
already changed. Right, in the five years it's taken for
it to go from state court to you know, from
state trial court to the appellate court to now the
Supreme Court, the technology has already changed. Which presents an
even more interesting component to this, which is there's a
(11:17):
Supreme Court and they're not supposed to generally adjust issues
that are not in front of them or before them
at that moment, but they take a more broad approach
and how they're going to look at this if they
are going to make a restriction because their technology is
constantly evolving, or is it going to be limited to
just this piece of technology and how they're us utilizing
it at this current juncture.
Speaker 2 (11:36):
I mean, there's no way this is going to hold.
I mean, it is a direct vial siting here while
you're talking about this is a direct violation of the
fourth of Amendment. They are accessing your information without your
for one thing, without a determination that you've actually even
committed a crime. Sure, because you get again, like you're saying,
you could be an innocent guy walking in and out
of this building for a day of business and you're
called up in this Now they have access to your
(11:58):
internal information and personal information. Then You're putting the onus
of trust on the analysts that are that are dealing
with that information, and we don't know how accurate or
how savvy or savory those people are. Sure, So you're
putting everyone's information, the most sensitive information, in the hands
of people that may not know how to treat it.
That is a direct violation of your Fourth Amendment right.
Speaker 3 (12:20):
All because you're within a certain distance from this STA.
Speaker 1 (12:23):
But I don't care why or where. No.
Speaker 2 (12:25):
I know as a US citizen, I'm protected by the Constitution.
You cannot just kick in my door theoretically and look
to my house because you think something happened, or you
you're sure that I was in the area and when
this crime went down, you got to do better than.
Speaker 3 (12:38):
That you got would also be a constitutional violation.
Speaker 2 (12:40):
Yeah, direct warrant saying I need access to your phone
because we know for a fact, bet whether it be
a witness, whether it be a camera shot, whether it
be something that you are the ID or a tag reader,
that you're the person right flip.
Speaker 4 (12:55):
Side of that, Go ahead, God forbid your child get
kidnapped and the geotract who was at the mall at
that time?
Speaker 3 (13:02):
You want that information? That's not a bad point. But
I think again, you know, like you said, it's a
slippery slope.
Speaker 4 (13:10):
Do you kind of sign away your rights anyways when
you when you sign into.
Speaker 1 (13:13):
Google and no, you don't sign away You're right, No, no, no,
the people.
Speaker 3 (13:17):
Like you know you allow us to use your data
and location.
Speaker 5 (13:20):
Yeah, you are definitely giving up privacy when you make
these agreements, on these user agreements that none of us read.
Speaker 2 (13:26):
We just accept because we want to use whatever it is.
But because I want to use Google doesn't mean I
want to go to jail.
Speaker 5 (13:32):
No, not that you want to go to jail, but
could they handle list just like you would in a
situation where there's a surveillance camera, if you are in
an area, you're going to be on camera. They're going
to be able to see you and decide whether you
are relevant to this situation or not.
Speaker 2 (13:46):
But seeing your image and pairing that up with a
witness's statement is different than rolling through your photos, dude,
or rolling through your phone and reading your text your
personal information.
Speaker 5 (13:56):
Well, going that far, but using the net to sit
if you pinged in the area, and then it would
it could warrant further investigation because you were in this
place at that time.
Speaker 3 (14:11):
Well, I think the idea too is what is meant
to be private and what's not meant to be private?
Speaker 1 (14:16):
Right?
Speaker 3 (14:16):
So I think to Jim's point is I don't intend
on all my information on my phone to be used
against me or public material. Whereas if I'm walking through
a parking lot and a camera catches me, you know,
I've got no reasonable expectation of privacy in public. And
so I do think that there's you know, I think
(14:37):
there's something to be said about there should be some
probable cause before you start rifling through all of my
what I would interpret as private.
Speaker 5 (14:46):
But mel could cell phone providers, could telecoms say that
these phone numbers were people who were in the area,
And then at that point you have to do the
detective work to get probable costs to extend that further.
So you're saying, is cut it off after that first point? Yeah,
(15:06):
because then it's nothing more than a surveillance camera identifying
people in an area.
Speaker 3 (15:11):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (15:11):
So I just got a text here it says nineteen
years as a law enforcement officer, most with investigations not true.
Pen Trap and trace does not lend all phone info.
Location is what we're looking for who was at that
location and when and the number dialed. Although also this
is utilized from major crimes, not a misdemeanor. That's what
(15:32):
I was asking earlier is do they only employ this
when it's like a felony of major charge because of
the protection of the general community, not somebody like shoplifting
from a dollar general.
Speaker 3 (15:42):
You know, Well, so what I was reading in the
brief specifically, I dealt with what you had asked about,
which is they had access to the specific data on
the phone. Oh well, so I know that the first
application for the warrant goes through and gets the geographic
location who's in this area, then they apply for a
followup warrants. Was they get the access to the phone,
(16:04):
And that's why I think, I mean, that's a part
of the problem.
Speaker 2 (16:07):
But you could see though, Ray like, if let's say,
you know, let's say somebody came in and robbed somebody
in this building and then ran out. Sure, and a
witness on the other set other side said, you know, hey,
the guy looked like a white male, probably between five
eight and six feet tall, and he got into a
gray truck and sped off. Now, if you threw out
your net there and you kind of looked at the
(16:27):
information and you just looked at one of those and
one of them. As you're rolling through it, you notice, well,
there's Jim Colbert. He's a fifty eight year old white
male between five eight and six feet tall. So we
can go talk to him just based on his height,
hair color and caught, you know, and skin color. Like
you could do that without like really hopping into somebody's
phone and start digging through for other information like did
he just buy a gun? Or did he did he
(16:49):
did he text somebody about this crime or something?
Speaker 1 (16:51):
You know?
Speaker 2 (16:52):
Yeah, interesting, all right four seven nine one six four
one text us at seven seven zero three one say
let brak will mc can do a few more minutes
with raying the hell out of here on a Monday
Popular Podcasts
Betrayal Weekly
Betrayal Weekly is back for a new season. Every Thursday, Betrayal Weekly shares first-hand accounts of broken trust, shocking deceptions, and the trail of destruction they leave behind. Hosted by Andrea Gunning, this weekly ongoing series digs into real-life stories of betrayal and the aftermath. From stories of double lives to dark discoveries, these are cautionary tales and accounts of resilience against all odds. From the producers of the critically acclaimed Betrayal series, Betrayal Weekly drops new episodes every Thursday. If you would like to share your story, you can reach out to the Betrayal Team by emailing them at betrayalpod@gmail.com and follow us on Instagram at @betrayalpod and @glasspodcasts. Please join our Substack for additional exclusive content, curated book recommendations, and community discussions. Sign up FREE by clicking this link Beyond Betrayal Substack. Join our community dedicated to truth, resilience, and healing. Your voice matters! Be a part of our Betrayal journey on Substack.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com