Pennsylvania Court Upholds Use of 'Keyword Search Warrants'

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has upheld the use of 'reverse keyword warrants' that allow police to compel Google to disclose information on who searched for specific terms related to a crime. While effective in some cases, privacy advocates argue these warrants threaten the privacy of innocent internet users whose searches may be swept up in the investigation.

Why it matters

The ruling highlights the growing tension between law enforcement's need to solve crimes quickly and the Fourth Amendment's protections against overly broad searches. As more of our daily lives leave digital traces, police are increasingly turning to tech companies' data to identify suspects, raising concerns about the privacy implications of these 'reverse keyword warrants'.

The details

In a 2016 rape case in Pennsylvania, police obtained a warrant for Google to disclose accounts that searched for the victim's name or address around the time of the attack. This led them to a suspect, John Edward Kurtz, who confessed to the rape and several other assaults. Kurtz's lawyers argued the warrant lacked probable cause, but the state Supreme Court upheld its use, with a split decision on the reasoning. Prosecutors say reverse keyword warrants are most effective when searching for specific, unusual terms, but privacy advocates warn they give police 'unfettered access' to people's online activity.

• In 2016, a woman was violently raped in a remote area outside Milton, Pennsylvania.
• More than a year later, in 2017, Google reported two searches for the victim's address were made from a specific IP address a few hours before the assault.
• In 2020, the suspect, John Edward Kurtz, was convicted and sentenced to 59 to 280 years in prison.

What they’re saying

What’s next

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court's ruling is likely to set a precedent for the use of reverse keyword warrants in other states, and privacy advocates are expected to continue challenging their legality on Fourth Amendment grounds.