Welcome back. 17 year old Dylan Sieber
was sentenced to seven years after he
and two other friends set the wrong
house on fire in Green Valley Ranch.
Siebert was 14 years old at the time.
Police say one of the friends phones
was stolen during a drug deal and a
computer app tracked the phone that
led the teens to the wrong house.
9 News legal analyst Whitney Trailer
joins us now to talk about this case.
Very interesting. Thanks for coming in.
Sure it is really interesting facts for sure.
So they found these teens through
a Google search warrant cause they
were trying to find where the.
Phone was pinging. Yes.
Now they're looking into whether
that was even constitutional.
Talk about that.
Right. So what's happening now is there's
going to be a hearing in front of the
Supreme Court because the District Court
has already said that the way that they
obtained the search warrant was, was lawful.
And their defense lawyers have filed a
motion actually to suppress the evidence
that was discovered as a result of that.
And So what the the real issue is,
is they didn't have usually
you get a search warrant.
It's very specific.
They want to look in a specific.
Full file folder on your computer or
they wanna look in a specific room.
Here they did a reverse warrant and
so they essentially got a search
warrant for Google and then we're
able to track who was looking up this
specific address and it tracked to
the boys and they had looked up this
address three times in the previous,
however long.
And so the real issue here is,
well, if you can do that kind of a
search and get a search warrant,
then anything that we do online
is subjecting.
Us to potential criminal liability
because it's, you know, in the,
the defendants called it a digital dragnet.
And this is sort of the essence
of a fishing expedition.
And So what happens is we have a
Fourth Amendment right to protection
from unlawful search and seizure.
And So what they're saying is that
this was an unlawful search and seizure
because it violated his privacy.
And it was just this broad search that
searched technically billions of people,
but only these boys had searched for this.
Specific address.
So they were able to track them down
and that was what led them to the boys
and that was what led to their arrest.
Is this a new thing like with this set
of precedents and like what were they
move forward with stuff like this,
right. Yes, this is a very new thing.
So there was a case I think in 2017,
but this case in particular
as a what they call a reverse,
a reverse search, a reverse Google
search is actually the first time really
that the courts are looking at it.
So they they although the case
is going on at the trial.
Port level, they're essentially posing
it so they can appeal this issue in
front of the Colorado Supreme Court.
So there's going to be a hearing on
May 4th in front of the Supreme Court.
Who's gonna decide was this
constitutional or not?
And if they decide, yes,
it was constitutional,
then the case will go forward.
One of these teens has
already been sentenced.
What happens if they rule
this unconstitutional?
What happens with where they've
gotten so far in the case,
right. So the law students will know this.
It's called fruit of the poisonous tree.
And so they say.
Look, if the search was not good,
meaning you shouldn't have
gotten that search warrant,
anything that you found as a result
of that search can't be used.
So that may.
That's why a lot of times District
attorneys say we can't prosecute
because we can't use the gun or we
can't use the body that we found.
So here if they were able
to suppress the warrant,
then the police would have to show what
we would have discovered them anyway.
It's called inevitable
disclosure it discovery.
So essentially if the courts.
Rule in favor of the defendants.
Then the prosecution may
not be able to go forward.
They may not have enough evidence
because all of this evidence
was subject was found as a
result of the search warrant.
This may not be the right legal lingo,
but I think you'll get where I'm going here.
So, so right now everything is
paused and this right, I mean,
they've moved forward with the one case,
but now everything is paused.
You said this next thing is on May 4th.
Does that interfere with like the right
to due process in a speedy manner?
The fact that.
So much time is passing in between,
right. So it's a right to a speedy trial.
That's exactly right.
But no, there have been a number
of hearings and motions and so
they're all in agreement because and
that's actually why they set the,
the trial to continue on May 26 was
because they wanted to get a decision
from the Supreme Court on May 4th.
So things even though it seems
like it's taking a long time,
it's still moving forward
and in its proper course.
Well, we'll see what happens.
I'm sure we're going to bring you in.
After May 4th, whatever they decide,
yes, I'm gonna try and sit
in on that, that hearing.
That would be interesting to
hear those arguments on May 4th.
Yeah. Whitney, as always,
thanks for coming in. Sure thing.