The victim found an intruder in his home, and called the police. The intruder got away. The police sought geolocation information from Google on all phones at the house, and defendant\u2019s phone came up. The officer called defendant. This was not called a geofence warrant, and the issue on appeal was the officer\u2019s ability to testify to what the geolocation information meant. State v. Crosby, 2026 N.H. LEXIS 28 (Feb. 25, 2026):<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\nThe defendant asserts that the officer\u2019s lack of knowledge of Google\u2019s location tracking technology impeded his ability to cross-examine the officer or to probe the accuracy of Google\u2019s business records. These arguments, however, go to the weight of the evidence rather than its admissibility. See Cochrane, 153 N.H. at 420, 424 (explaining that concerns about false positive readings from a Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus test, and a police officer\u2019s training and experience in administering that test, go to the weight of the evidence rather than its admissibility); State v. Wall, 154 N.H. 237, 244, 910 A.2d 1253 (2006) (explaining that a party need not prove that business records are accurate before they are admitted and that objections that a business record may contain inaccuracies, ambiguities, or omissions go to the weight of the evidence). Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court sustainably exercised its discretion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The victim found an intruder in his home, and called the police. The intruder got away. The police sought geolocation information from Google on all phones at the house, and defendant\u2019s phone came up. The officer called defendant. This was … Continue reading