Commonwealth v. Kurtz, J., Aplt.

Summary

Justice Donohue, dissenting, would have held that Article I, Section 8 protects a Google user's search queries and associated IP address from warrantless government access because internet searching is functionally necessary in modern society and the accumulated data creates a personal biography. She also would have held that the keyword-search warrant lacked probable cause because the affidavit offered only speculative assumptions and no individualized nexus between Google's database and the crime. Justice Donohue would have reversed the Superior Court's order, but the supplied text is a dissent and does not show the Court's final disposition.