A New Jersey appeals court has upheld the use of a controversial “geofence warrant” in a 2022 armed robbery case, ruling that the digital search tool did not violate the state constitution.
The decision marks the first time a New Jersey appellate court has addressed the constitutionality of geofence warrants, which allow police to request location data from tech companies to identify devices near a crime scene.
The New Jersey Appellate Division’s ruling, issued Tuesday, stems from a March 2022 robbery at a Milltown gas station.
A masked man assaulted a store clerk and fled with $673, according to court records.
Witnesses told police the suspect appeared to be speaking to someone on a phone, the opinion said.
That prompted detectives to seek a geofence warrant from Google to identify any devices present during the 14-minute window of the crime.
Google responded with data showing one device in the area, leading to a second warrant that identified the device’s owner as Van Salter, according to the ruling.
Police obtained three separate warrants related to Salter’s phone, the decision said.
The first was to identify devices near the crime scene using Google location data.
The second was to reveal the identity of the device owner, and the third to access the suspect’s account information and location history.
The appeals court said that data led to Salter’s arrest and indictment on multiple charges including robbery and aggravated assault.
Salter moved to suppress the evidence, arguing the warrants were unconstitutional and lacked probable cause.
The Middlesex County Superior Court agreed, finding the initial warrant was based on assumptions rather than concrete evidence.
The appeals court reversed that decision, ruling that the widespread use of smartphones and the witnesses’ observations provided sufficient grounds for the initial warrant.
The court emphasized that geofence warrants are not inherently unconstitutional but must be evaluated individually for probable cause and specificity.
The panel remanded the case to the lower court to assess whether the second and third warrants also met constitutional standards.
The three-judge panel issued a 2-1 decision.
In dissent, Judge Katie A. Gummer argued the initial warrant was based on speculation and failed to establish a direct link between the suspect and Google’s location data.
Civil liberties groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey, argued the warrant was unconstitutional because it relied on speculation that the suspect had a phone sharing data with Google.
Dillon Reisman, a staff attorney with the ACLU-NJ, said this case raises core questions about constitutional right to privacy and under what circumstances the government can track a person’s location through cell phones.
“It is critical to protect this kind of sensitive data as surveillance technologies evolve and harm privacy in novel ways,” Reisman said.
They contended that this lack of specific evidence could not justify a search that potentially exposed the location data of millions of users.
Prosecutors and law enforcement groups defended the practice, calling it a vital tool for solving crimes in the digital age.
The ruling allows prosecutors to proceed with the case against Salter, pending further review of the remaining warrants.
Salter was represented by the New Jersey Office of the Public Defender, while the Middlesex County Prosecutor’s Office handled the prosecution.
Neither office immediately responded to requests for comment.