Most people cannot go through a day without performing at least one search on Google some other search engine. For years, police investigators have searched the phones and computers of suspects to determine if they looked for something online that might have some connection to a crime. But what happens when authorities try to reverse the process by asking a Google or a similar provider to give them information on about who searched for particular keywords during a specific time period?

Multiple tribunals across the country are grappling with that issue now, including the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in the Commonwealth v. Kurtz case. In this matter, law enforcement personnel were pursuing a rape investigation and sought information from Google through a keyword search warrant. The warrant required Google to identify any users who had searched for the address of the crime scene during the hours preceding the attack. In compliance with the warrant, Google provided the IP address of an individual who had conducted such a search. This information led investigators to identify John Edward Kurtz as a potential suspect.

The evidence obtained from the keyword search warrant helped lead to Kurtz's conviction for rape in an October 2020 trial. He filed an unsuccessful appeal of the decision, challenging the constitutionality of the search warrant and arguing that the collection of digital data through Google infringed upon his Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. However, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court agreed to hear his subsequent appeal. 

Though a keyword search warrant might be a useful way to narrow down suspects in cases where other leads may be scarce, the court is determining whether someone who performs a Google search has a reasonable expectation of privacy. If they find that such an expectation exists, the prosecution would have to show that probable cause existed to conduct the search.  

Opponents of keyword search warrants assert that they are overly broad, invasive “general searches,” infringing on the privacy rights of innocent individuals. This issue is being debated across the country, so the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's decision will garner a lot of attention. However they rule, the justices will make a statement about the balance between privacy rights and law enforcement's ability to leverage digital tools in solving sex crimes and other cases where search engine activity might show how a victim was targeted.   

Matthew R. Zatko, Attorney at Law in Somerset defends residents of Somerset, Indiana, Bedford and Cambria counties against all types of criminal allegations. For a consultation regarding the legal issues in your case and how to counter the prosecution’s charges, please call 814-443-1631 or contact me online. My office is in Somerset.