techdirt: Reverse Warrant Used In Robbery Investigation Being Challenged As Unconstitutional by Tim Cushing (“Reverse warrants are being challenged in a criminal case involving a bank robbery in Virginia. These warrants (also called ‘geofence warrants’) work in reverse, hence the nickname. Rather than seeking to search property belonging to a known suspect, investigators approach Google with a demand for information on all cellphones in a certain location at a certain time and work backwards from this stash to determine who to pursue as a suspect. [¶] Warrants require probable cause. And there doesn’t seem to be much in the way of specific probable cause supporting these fishing expeditions. In this case, a bank was robbed in the late afternoon, resulting in plenty of people unrelated to the robbery being in the vicinity. This is all it takes to turn random people into suspects. And that has gone badly for investigators and, more importantly, innocent citizens on more than one occasion. “)

While a 911 call must be reliable, it must also refer to “criminal activity [that] may be afoot.” This satisfies both prongs. United States v. Vandergroen, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 21150 (9th Cir. July 7, 2020):

The law firm sued over its attorneys fees in complying with federal grand jury subpoenas for a client after a search warrant directed to the client. The trial court made findings of fact finding the reasonable fee one-third of what the firm sought. The trial court’s findings of a reasonable fee are affirmed because the record supports them. Bopp Law Firm v. Schock for Congress, 2020 Ind. App. LEXIS 287 (July 6, 2020)*: