April 1, 2024, Minnesota Court of Appeals Caselaw Update:
Geofence warrants are constitutional in Minnesota.
Today, April 1, 2024, in State v. Contreras-Sanchez, A22-1579 (Minn. App. Apr. 1, 2024), the Minnesota Court of Appeals concluded that geofence warrants, which authorize law enforcement to obtain location-history data of cellular devices that were within a defined area during a specified time frame, are not categorically prohibited by the United States and Minnesota Constitutions as general warrants, but instead are to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis according to established constitutional principles.
A geofence warrant allows law enforcement to collect the location-history data of any devices that communicated with a third-party entity like Google while the devices were present in a designated geographical area. In Contreras-Sanchez, the State obtained a warrant to obtain information from Google related to accounts used in the area where the body was located. The information obtained as a result of the execution of the warrant included a Google account connected to Contreras-Sanchez.
Contreras-Sanchez challenged the constitutionality of geofence warrants under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article 1, section 10 of the Minnesota Constitution and alternatively argued that the warrant was not supported by probable cause.
The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s determination that geofence warrants are constitutional and that there was probable cause to support the warrant issued in Contreras-Sanchez’s case.
Hennepin County; second-degree intentional murder
