Google searches can convict you, says Fairfax criminal defense lawyer

Google (“G”) searches are not confidential, and can get you prosecuted and convicted if connected to provable criminal activity. As a Fairfax criminal lawyer, I know that too many people are lulled into a false sense of security when alone on the Internet. However, your Internet searching device has a unique IP (Internet Protocol), and is using an Internet Service Provider (ISP) whom you cannot rely on to challenge police / law enforcement officer (LEO) search warrants and subpoenas that will track down your activity, whether innocent or not, whether the actual or potential criminal activity be planning and executing crimes, arranging illegal drug deals, viewing and sharing child pornography, and viewing and sharing material that may be deemed in court as criminally obscene. Also, beware that prosecutions for online activity can transcend the country of your online activity to cover criminal laws in other nations. Finally, your “convenient” cellphone is its own GPS tracking device, recording your every move and online action.

How did Willie James Clements, Jr., get convicted by his Google searches, for hit and run & aggravated malicious wounding?

Willie James Clements, Jr.’s own online searching helped get him convicted before a Northern Virginia jury for hit and run(opens in new tab) and aggravated malicious wounding(opens in new tab). Clements v. Commonwealth of Virginia(opens in new tab), 2026 WL 2317717 (Va. App. 2026).  The allegations in Clements are ugly, but allegations should never water down the application of the law. Clements allegedly gave a ride to a woman, M.K., who got into his car instead of her rideshare (presumably of the Uber variety) that was in front of Clements’ vehicle. Clements Googled his victim’s address, he drove her past there, she was ejected from his car one way or the other, and Clements drove away. Police tracked down Clements, because “M.K.’s cellphone data ‘indicate[d] that the phone traveled . . . past [her] residence’ before crossing the intersection where the incident occurred. With no evidence indicating the suspect knew M.K. and based on her appearing ‘extremely intoxicated’ in the bar surveillance footage, police reasoned that in order to drive past M.K.’s home, the suspect would have searched her address in a ‘navigation system’ to get directions to her home. On this premise, the police secured a keyword-search warrant for any Google account that searched M.K.’s address in [G] the night of the incident. Specifically, the warrant authorized the collection of any accounts that on May 15, 2022, from 2:15 a.m. to 3:15 a.m., searched M.K.’s address, or ‘any reasonable derivatives.’ The warrant resulted in only one [G] account that searched for her address at 2:22 a.m. on that date. After securing a second search warrant for the account’s information and the phone number associated with it, the police confirmed that the account was associated with Clements. In addition to M.K.’s address, Clements’s search history also included, ‘Arlington VA News, Police, Woman Jumps out of Vehicle,’ and ‘Any suspect in Arlington VA News, Police, Woman Jumps out of Vehicle.'” Clements. The Clements concurring judge would have invalidated this search had it followed the publication of Chatrie v. U.S., addressed in the next paragraph.

Why did the Virginia Court of Appeals not invalidate the search warrant that led to Clements’ online search activity?

The federal Supreme Court this year found a reasonable expectation of privacy to challenge a search warrant of Google to tell who was within a specified geographical perimeter at a specific time. Chatrie v. U.S., 146 S.Ct. 2193 (2026). Clements says Chatrie does not save Clements: “This particular reverse-keyword search warrant is distinguishable from the geofencing warrant considered in Chatrie v. United States, 609 U.S. ___ (2026). There, law enforcement officers obtained a single warrant for data from [G], attempting to cut the judicial system out of the investigatory process thereafter. Id. at ___ (Jackson, J., concurring). They were allowed to access information beyond the scope of the geofence, and they were subject to no duty to narrow their search upon receiving anonymized data from [G]. Id. at ___. That same lack of judicial oversight does not exist here. The law enforcement officers in this case narrowly tailored their search to the specific facts of the case and identified precise and limited information. And, importantly, they sought the court’s authorization at each step by obtaining a new warrant in light of the information received from [G] in the first instance. This multi-step approach dispels the concerns expressed in Chatrie about supplying a Sovereign with unfettered ‘access [to] all of a cell-phone user’s movements” such that she would wield a “virtual panopticon with which to scrutinize [] citizens’ activities. ‘” Clements.

Should I fight search warrants that discover my online activity?

At least if you are a criminal defendant, you should fight search warrants that discover your online activity, whether or not those warrants are for your own devices or to such third parties as Google or any other entity. Make sure that your Virginia criminal defense lawyer understands relevant Fourth Amendment appellate case law on the matter, and beware if your lawyer tells you that it is not worth fighting your search warrant. Fairfax criminal lawyer Jon Katz has for decades been fighting police searches and seizures and will be delighted to talk with you about how to pursue your best defense against your drug, contraband or other major criminal prosecution, at 703-383-1100, Info@KatzJustice.com .

Fairfax criminal defense lawyer Jonathan Katz pursues your best defense against Virginia felony, misdemeanor and DUI prosecutions. Schedule your free in-person confidential initial consultation with Jon Katz about your court-pending prosecution, by contacting Jon’s staff at 703-383-1100(opens in new tab), Info@KatzJustice.com and (text} 571-406-7268.