Understanding ‘Reverse Search Warrants’ – What You Need to Know

While most search warrants are used to collect evidence on a specific person who is suspected of a crime, so-called reverse search warrants are used by law enforcement to search for potential suspects from a broad pool of individuals.

By using search criteria like location or keywords that have been searched on Google, reverse search warrants can lead law enforcement to unfairly search innocent, unsuspecting individuals.

If you have reason to believe you’ve been targeted by California law enforcement through a reverse search warrant or have had your rights violated by an illegal search or seizure, it’s important that you seek the advice of a criminal defense attorney right away.

With more than 40 years experience fighting in California and federal courts, attorney Robert M. Helfend is here to help. Call 800-834-6434.

What are reverse search warrants?

In a typical criminal case, a search warrant is issued in order to gather evidence of a crime that is believed to have taken place at a specific location or by a particular suspect.

In recent years, the ease with which different types of data can be accessed from cell phones and other devices has resulted in a trend in which law enforcement are able to search the locations, Google searches, and even DNA records of hundreds and even thousands of individuals in hopes of finding a suspect.

These types of searches raise concerns about violations of privacy, not to mention Americans’ Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. While there continues to be legal pushback against reverse search warrants, it’s important to understand how they work and how you can defend yourself against unfair and illegal searches.

Two of the most commonly used reverse search types are “geofence warrants” and “keyword warrants.”  

Geofence warrants

A geofence warrant is a type of search warrant that allows law enforcement to use location data from cell phones or other location-tracking devices that were within a relatively specific geographical area during certain time period.

For example, if investigators believe that a crime occurred at a park on a particular date between 9:00 AM and 11:00 AM, they might use a geofence warrant to obtain an anonymized list of mobile devices that were within the range of the cell tower nearest to the park around that time period from the cellular company.

Law enforcement can then analyze the list provided to identify devices that could have belonged to a potential suspect (for example, a single device that appears to have been at the crime scene location during the window in which the crime was likely committed). They will then use that evidence to obtain the identity of the owner.

Keyword warrants

Using records of peoples’ search histories in criminal cases is not a new phenomenon. However, the amount of data being collected by apps, in addition to Google searches, increases the degree to which keyword searched and other data tracking can become invasive.

In a typical investigation, a warrant is obtained to search the records of a person who has already been suspected of a crime. But keyword warrants can allow law enforcement to do this process in reverse, acquiring a list of everyone who has entered specific terms or keywords into a search bar and scanning that list for potential suspects.

The problem is that a judge who approves this type of search has no way of knowing how many individuals will have searched they keywords in question, potentially subjecting thousands of people to an unfair and invasive search.

Because keyword searches can also provide police with the geographical locations of the individuals searching specific terms, it raises concerns about the targeting of members of specific religious communities, people who attended protests, or those seeking reproductive or gender-affirming care. 

Judicial pushback against reverse search warrants

United States judges and magistrates have been questioning both the constitutionality and the necessity of geofence and keyword warrants.

Currently, many judges are trying to at least limit the use of reverse search warrants. They argue that, if law enforcement can use other means to identify a suspect or perpetrator, that they should do everything they can before using a reverse search warrant. Many are hoping that the Supreme Court will eventually ban the practice altogether.

While there are legal efforts to ban or limit the use of reverse search warrants, law enforcement are still able to use them.

Those within the judicial system who are pushing back against the use of reverse search warrants argue that they violate Americans’ constitutional rights to free speech and protection against unreasonable search and seizure. Geofence and keyword warrants may also violate individuals’ right to privacy.

If you’ve been targeted by law enforcement with a reverse search warrant, these arguments might also be used as a defense against any evidence that was gathered as a result of the search. 

1. Violation of Fourth Amendment rights

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects citizens against unreasonable searches and Seizures. The law requires that law enforcement has probable cause to conduct the search and obtains a warrant that details the specific place or property to be searched. You can use the Fourth Amendment as a defense against reverse search warrants by arguing that they violate the requirements of:

  • Probable cause – Reverse search warrants are issued under the assumption that someone in a particular place or who searches certain terms might be guilty of a crime. This assumption may not be considered probable cause.
  • Particularity – Geofence and keyword warrants lack the required specificity of what or who is to be searched.

2. Violation of privacy

You might be able to argue that identifying your location or search terms without probable cause is a violation of your privacy. 

3. Violation of First Amendment right to free speech 

The First Amendment ensures that Americans have a right to free speech, which includes the right to search for information online. Keyword warrants that use online searches to broadly identify individuals who have not yet been suspected of a crime may be a violation of this right.

How can police use Ring camera footage?

The invention of the video doorbell has had numerous benefits for homeowners, from avoiding unwelcome solicitors to identifying the “porch pirates” who keep stealing the packages or even the squirrel who keeps eating the birdseed. But Ring doorbells do more than just gather footage. Through the “Neighbors” social network that comes with the Ring app, that footage becomes shareable. Law enforcement agencies have taken advantage of this feature, with more than 2,600 local law enforcement agencies partnering directly with the Amazon-owned company.

There have been instances where police request access to Ring camera footage from users, who can choose whether or not to grant the request. While Ring assures users that they don’t stream their doorbell footage or give law enforcement access to their videos or personal information, police still have the means to access Ring camera footage without the owner’s consent. If footage is stored in the cloud, police can use a search warrant or subpoena to require the manufacturer to share the footage. They may serve a warrant directly to the camera owner. 

Many individuals and social justice groups have scrutinized the use of Ring camera footage by law enforcement, claiming that it unfairly targets people from certain communities, especially people of color. 

In the summer of 2020, hundreds of demonstrators gathered in Los Angeles to protest the murder of George Floyd and other acts of violence against people of color believed to have been perpetrated by law enforcement. Following the Black Lives Matter protests, LAPD sought out Ring camera footage to use in the investigation of alleged crimes committed during the protests.

Email records show that LAPD repeatedly asked camera owners for footage with the aid of law enforcement liaisons employed by Ring. This practice not only raised legal concerns about the pressuring of private citizens to share their data without a warrant, but of the targeting of citizens of color through the use of video footage. 

Are you required to share Ring camera footage with police?

Legally, Ring camera users aren’t required to share footage with law enforcement without a warrant. Ring camera users who wish to opt out of receiving requests for footage from police can do so through a setting in the Ring app. However, opting out of receiving requests does not mean that you will not be required to share footage if served with a judicial warrant. 

Challenging the use of Ring camera footage as evidence

Legal defenses against the use of Ring camera footage as evidence typically have to do with violations of the Fourth Amendment, the unreliability of the evidence, and privacy violations. If Ring camera footage is being used as evidence against you in a legal case, your criminal defense attorney can help you determine if these defenses can be used to fight your charges.

1. Illegal search 

The Fourth Amendment requires probable cause and the obtainment of a warrant in order to search a person’s home or the area immediately surrounding it. Using footage of that area without a warrant is considered an illegal search. Any evidence obtained through an illegal search is inadmissible in court.

2. Unreliable evidence

Footage taken from a Ring camera can be found to be unreliable in numerous ways, including:

  • Authentication issues – In order to know that video footage is accurate, there needs to be record of who has had access to the footage and whether it could have been altered. This is not always possible when dealing with Ring camera footage.
  • Poor video quality – If the footage gathered by the camera is unclear or incomplete, it can be argued to be unreliable.
  • Inaccurate timestamp – If the accuracy of the timestamp on the footage can be called into question, it can raise doubts about whether the footage itself is real or accurate.

3. Violation of privacy

It is illegal to obtain footage of people in areas where they can reasonably expect to have privacy, such as inside of a home or in a public restroom. If Ring camera footage captures a person in such a location, that footage will be considered illegally obtained and can’t be used as evidence in court.

If you’ve been unfairly targeted by law enforcement through a reverse search warrant or have had data from a mobile device or camera used against you, you have legal defense options.

California criminal defense attorney Robert M. Helfend has been fiercely defending his clients’ rights for over four decades. If you hire him to represent you, Mr. Helfend will examine the evidence against you and build the strongest possible defense strategy while keeping you informed of your legal rights and options.

If you have questions about legal risks related to your cellular devices or need assistance with your case, Robert M. Helfend is available to take your call. Schedule a free, initial consultation at 800-834-6434.

Published April 12, 2025.