Does geofencing see all phones? Or just ones with GPS enabled? Or flip phones etc?
[QUOTE=BlackEscape;7124012]This is the second time I have seen this said, so I feel the need to explain why this won't happen.
Geofencing can only predict within a range. In an area such as 16 and mound in Sterling Heights, it will be incredibly accurate, but not totally. If they were looking for a guy who did a specific thing at a specific place at a specific time, this could probably be enough to compel a subpoena for the owners of devices. But we are talking about devices that were in the area for a half hour to an hour, at most, a handful of times within a date range. There are several other businesses within a single-digit number of feet that operate within the same timeframe that AM did and within the date range that AM was open. These present challenges to the validity and reliability of geofencing.
The prosecutor would likely propose a range of accuracy based on calculations from a "geofencing expert" who will lay out the boundaries, which will probably be based on some sort of formula applied to a sample of like a hundred or so trials of measuring where different devices are in and around that office building. If there were any updates to software, for either satellites or phones pertaining to geolocation, these would also need to be accounted for and could potentially make the results from geofencing unusable because the tests for the range of accuracy could not be recreated. This alone would create such a headache and most likely resolve in a geofence so much larger than the bounds of that building, that conceivably, so many people would be caught within that geofence that they would need to reach out to hundreds-thousands of people who likely had no clue about this stuff, depending on their date range. Those experts would not be cheap. I would expect it to run the court about $50-100 k just for this silly little test, and I don't believe that a local judge would be happy about having to go through all of that, just to find out that most people caught in their net are soccer moms with sore backs, people who got injured at work, or maybe even, depending on the time of day and other factors, people sitting in their car waiting for their pizza at Happy's.
Geofencing worked in the context of the capitol because it was a relatively large area, and they had a very specific period of time. Here, there is a very, very narrow sliver of geography and they are looking for a specific period of time that a case was in the area within a wide range. This won't be used to bust guys who walked into a massage therapy facility where they were met with a woman who may or may not offered them sex for money.
And I know guys are worried about getting busted months later because of the Kraft case, but that is a 100% different case and that was thrown out. However, all mongers should read up on that.[/QUOTE].
