Brief filed: 07/19/2024
Documents
State of Minnesota v. Contreras-Sanchez
Minnesota Supreme Court; Case No. A22-1579
Argument(s)
In this case, the Court is presented with a novel investigative technique—a “geofence” or “reverse location” warrant—that provides police with unbridled discretion to track the travels of countless Minnesotans, regardless of whether they are connected to any crime. The specific warrant at issue here is a particularly pernicious example of a geofence warrant because it allowed the Dakota County Sheriff Office (DCSO) to seek location information for anyone who traveled within the geofenced area during a full month—significantly longer than any other geofence warrant that has been upheld by any court in the country. Further, the warrant, on its face, allowed police to—at their own discretion and without judicial oversight—seek the identities of any of these individuals, as well as six months of their IP histories, in turn revealing additional location information. Even if the warrant here were not a general warrant, it granted improper police discretion, lacked particularity, and was unconstitutionally overbroad. As such, amici urge this Court to find this warrant unconstitutional, overturn the trial court ruling, and suppress all evidence derived from the warrant.
Author(s)
Andrew Crocker and Jennifer Lynch, Electronic Frontier Foundation, San Francisco, CA; Leita Walker, Ballard Spahr, LLP, Minneapolis, MN; Justin Johnston, Johnston Law Firm LLC, Kansas City, MO; Shauna Faye Kieffer, Minnesota Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Minneapolis, MN; Michael Price and Nicola Morrow, NACDL, Washington, DC
