The conflict between personal liberty and collective security has challenged Americans throughout the ages. The reverse location search warrant, which provides police officers with the ability to access location information on every smartphone that passes within a certain radius around a crime scene, is the newest chapter in this conflict. This technology is relatively new, but it is slowly being adopted by technologically savvy police departments across the country. While the reverse location search warrant could help officers catch and prevent crimes, the technology comes at the cost of providing police departments with unprecedented access to the location information of individuals that might not have otherwise satisfied traditional probable cause as required by the Fourth Amendment. This Comment first seeks to provide a high-level explanation of the reverse location search warrant, including the process by which this type of warrant is served to judges. It then discusses the role of Google, the primary provider of location information, in cooperating with law enforcement. Next, it outlines the technical and constitutional concerns created through the use of reverse location search warrants, specifically addressing concerns around the accuracy of Google’s location information data, judges’ ability to meaningfully review these warrants, and potential Fourth Amendment challenges that reverse location search warrants might face. It next discusses the benefits that reverse location search warrants might provide to police departments across the country, including connecting otherwise seemingly disparate crimes and providing defense attorneys with location information they can use to protect their clients. Finally, this Comment proposes that the judiciary create an emergency exception to the probable cause framework in order to analyze reverse location search warrants. This exception is necessary because these search warrants raise unique technological and constitutional issues that are difficult to analyze under the probable cause framework. Alternatively, this Comment provides three common-sense legislative solutions which, if adopted, would help limit the privacy impact that reverse location search warrants could have on citizens across the country.

长期以来，个人自由与集体安全之间的冲突一直在挑战着美国人。反向位置搜查令使警察能够访问在犯罪现场特定半径范围内通过的每部智能手机上的位置信息，是这场冲突的最新篇章。这项技术相对较新，但正在慢慢被全国精通技术的警察部门采用。虽然反向位置搜查令可以帮助警察抓捕和预防犯罪，但该技术的代价是为警察部门提供前所未有的个人位置信息访问权限，否则这些人可能无法满足第四修正案要求的传统可能原因。本评论首先试图对反向位置搜查令提供高层次的解释，包括向法官送达此类搜查令的过程。然后讨论位置信息的主要提供者谷歌在与执法部门合作中的作用。接下来，它概述了通过使用反向位置搜索令产生的技术和宪法问题，特别是解决了对 Google 位置信息数据准确性的担忧、法官有意义地审查这些授权的能力以及反向位置搜索令可能面临的第四修正案挑战可能面临。接下来讨论反向位置搜查令可能为全国各地的警察部门提供的好处，包括将看似不同的犯罪联系起来，并向辩护律师提供他们可以用来保护客户的位置信息。最后，该评论建议司法部门为可能原因框架创建紧急例外，以分析反向位置搜查令。这一例外是必要的，因为这些搜查令提出了在可能原因框架下难以分析的独特技术和宪法问题。或者，本评论提供了三个常识性立法解决方案，如果采用这些解决方案，将有助于限制反向位置搜查令可能对全国公民产生的隐私影响。该评论建议司法部门为可能原因框架创建紧急例外，以分析反向位置搜查令。这一例外是必要的，因为这些搜查令提出了在可能原因框架下难以分析的独特技术和宪法问题。或者，本评论提供了三个常识性立法解决方案，如果采用这些解决方案，将有助于限制反向位置搜查令可能对全国公民产生的隐私影响。该评论建议司法部门为可能原因框架创建紧急例外，以分析反向位置搜查令。这一例外是必要的，因为这些搜查令提出了在可能原因框架下难以分析的独特技术和宪法问题。或者，本评论提供了三个常识性立法解决方案，如果采用这些解决方案，将有助于限制反向位置搜查令可能对全国公民产生的隐私影响。