Page 31 - TPA Journal November December 2024
P. 31
for a Search Warrant. That application contained is directed to produce the following
an attached affidavit from Matney, which information associated with the Subject
Mathews helped write. Because this type of war- Accounts, which will be reviewed by law
rant was new, particularly to Mathews, the Postal enforcement personnel (who may
Inspectors consulted with other law enforcement include, in addition to law enforcement
agencies when writing the application. officers and agents, attorneys for the
Additionally, the Inspectors used several different government, attorney support staff,
“go-bys”—or form documents—to ensure that agency personnel assisting the govern-
their application had all the necessary “technical ment in this investigation, and outside
language.” Finally, the Inspectors also consulted technical experts under government con-
with the U.S. Attorney’s Office prior to seeking trol) are authorized to review the records
their warrant. produced by the Provider in order to
The affidavit stated that “there is probable cause to locate any evidence, fruits, and instru-
believe that the Google accounts identified in mentalities of 18 U.S.C. section 2114(a),
Section I of Attachment A, associated with a par- Robbery of a U.S. Postal Service
ticular specified location at a particular specified Employee.
time, contain evidence, fruits and instrumentalities 1. Location information. All location
of a violation of 18 U.S.C. section 2114(a), data, whether derived from Global
Robbery of a U.S. Postal Service Employee.” Positioning System (GPS) data, cell
However, as with any geofence warrant, no spe- site/cell tower triangulation/trilateration,
cific Google accounts were identified in Section I and precision measurement information
of Attachment A; rather, the Attachment only such as timing advance or per call mea-
specified specific coordinates around the Lake surement data, and Wi-Fi location,
Cormorant Post Office. The box created by those including the GPS coordinates, estimated
coordinates covered approximately 98,192 square radius, and the dates and times of all
meters. location recordings, between 5:00 p.m.
The affidavit also provided a specific Probable CT and 6:00 p.m. CT on February 5,
Cause Statement. In that statement, the Inspectors 2018;
detailed the two vehicles implicated in the rob- 2. Any user and each device correspond-
bery, Cobbs’s description of the assailant, and a ing to the location data to be provided by
statement that, through a review of the video sur- the “Provider” will be identified only by
veillance footage, “it appears the robbery suspect a numerical identifier, without any fur-
[was] possibly using a cellular device both before ther content or information identifying
and after the robbery occur[ed].” Finally, the the user of a particular device. Law
Inspectors included language in the application enforcement will analyze this location
stating, in regard to Step 2 outlined above, that law data to identify users who may have wit-
enforcement “will seek any additional information nessed or participated in the Subject
regarding [relevant] devices through further legal Offenses and will seek any additional
process.” information regarding those devices
The application and affidavit were submitted to a through further legal process.
U.S. magistrate judge, who issued the warrant on 3. For those accounts identified as rele-
November 8, 2018. The language of the warrant vant to the ongoing investigation through
largely tracked Google’s three-step process out- an analysis of provided records, and
lined above: upon demand, the “Provider” shall pro-
To the extent within the Provider’s pos- vide additional location history outside
session, custody, or control, the Provider of the predefined area for those relevant
30 www.texaspoliceassociation.com • (512) 458-3140 Texas Police Journal
