ELECTRONICALLY FILED
Benton County Circuit Court
Brenda DeShields, Circuit Clerk

2017-Feb-17 17:09:32
04CR-16-370
C19WD02 : 91 Pages

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF BENTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS
STATE OF ARKANSAS

PLAINTIFF
CASE NO. CR-2016-370-2

v.

DEFENDANT

JAMES A. BATES

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF
AMAZON’S MOTION TO QUASH SEARCH WARRANT
Pursuant to Rule 13 of the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure, Petitioner
Amazon.com, Inc. (“Amazon”), submits this memorandum in support of its Motion to Quash a
search warrant served on Amazon.1 The warrant requests that Amazon produce any audio
recordings and transcripts that were created as a result of interactions with an Amazon Echo
device owned by the defendant James Bates and located in his residence. Given the important
First Amendment and privacy implications at stake, the warrant should be quashed unless the
Court finds that the State has met its heightened burden for compelled production of such
materials.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
The Amazon Echo is a hands-free speaker that users control with their voice. Echo uses
a processor on the device to identify a “wake word” and in response to that word connects the
device to Amazon’s cloud-based Alexa Voice Service to receive and respond to voice
commands. In response to such commands the device delivers information such as news,
weather, music, and other forms of entertainment and content over the device’s speaker. Such

1

Amazon and the State have agreed to confer with the Court, following the filing of Amazon’s Motion to Quash, to
determine dates for the filing of any response and reply, and for holding any hearing in this matter.

1
4812-9258-0673v.28 0051461-001338

 interactions may constitute expressive content that implicates privacy concerns and First
Amendment protections.
Echo has received rave reviews from consumers and experts, and its popularity has led to
other companies developing and selling similar “smart” speakers for use in the home. In
addition to the original Echo device, Amazon also sells two additional Alexa-enabled devices –
the Echo Dot and the Amazon Tap.
Amazon does not seek to obstruct any lawful investigation, but rather seeks to protect the
privacy rights of its customers when the government is seeking their data from Amazon,
especially when that data may include expressive content protected by the First Amendment. As
courts have observed, “[t]he fear of government tracking and censoring one’s reading, listening,
and viewing choices chills the exercise of First Amendment rights.” Amazon.com LLC v. Lay,
758 F. Supp. 2d 1154, 1168 (W.D. Wash. 2010).
Accordingly, Amazon asks this Court, consistent with the rulings of many other courts, to
require the State in the first instance to make a heightened showing of relevance and need for any
recordings. Specifically, the State must demonstrate: (1) a compelling need for the information
sought, including that it is not available from other sources; and (2) a sufficient nexus between
the information and the subject of the criminal investigation. See, e.g., Amazon.com LLC v. Lay,
758 F. Supp. 2d at 1167-69; In re Grand Jury Subpoena to Amazon.com dated August 7, 2006,
246 F.R.D. 570, 572-74 (W.D. Wis. 2007); In re Grand Jury Investigation of Possible Violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 1461, 706 F. Supp. 2d 11, 18-19 (D.D.C. 2005); In re Grand Jury Subpoena to
Kramerbooks & Afterwords Inc., 26 Media L. Rep. 1599, 1599-1601 (D.D.C. 1998) (attached
hereto as Exhibit 1); Tattered Cover, Inc. v. City of Thornton, 44 P.3d 1044, 1058-59 (Colo.
2002) (en banc).

2
4812-9258-0673v.28 0051461-001338

 In order to ensure consistent application of these standards, Amazon asks the Court to
confirm that such a heightened standard applies when the requested audio recordings (and
transcripts) of speech and sounds in a subscriber’s home implicate privacy and First Amendment
concerns. If the Court finds that the State has made a prima facie showing of heightened need
and relevance for recordings from the defendant’s Echo, then this Court should review the
specific recordings in camera to determine whether the heightened standard for disclosure has
been satisfied.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
A.

Amazon

Amazon is one of the world’s leading online retailers, selling books, music, movies, and
other types of products to millions of customers worldwide, and it seeks to be Earth’s most
customer-centric company. Stanford Aff. ¶ 4.2 Amazon takes very seriously any attempts to
invade the privacy of its customers, and Amazon advises customers of its privacy practices –
including that Amazon does not voluntarily share its customers’ product choices – in a Privacy
Notice linked at the bottom of nearly every page on Amazon’s website. See
https://www.amazon.com/privacy. Stanford Aff. ¶ 5.
Amazon customers have expressed concern about disclosure of their purchase choices
and have indicated a reluctance to use Amazon for online purchasing if their privacy is not
protected. For example, when the North Carolina Department of Revenue demanded that
Amazon disclose names and addresses along with purchases that included expressive works,
several customers took the extraordinary step of intervening anonymously and submitting

2

Amazon submits the Affidavit of Jeff Stanford (“Stanford Aff.”), attached hereto as Exhibit 3, to provide
background information concerning the characteristics and operation of the Echo device. These details supplement
– but do not conflict with – the description of Echo set forth in the search warrant affidavit. See Stanford Aff. Ex.
A-1.

3
4812-9258-0673v.28 0051461-001338

 declarations to describe sensitive purchases that they deemed private and did not want disclosed.
Amazon.com LLC v. Lay, 758 F. Supp. 2d 1154. Each intervenor testified that disclosure of
sensitive personal information about their Amazon purchases could harm their career and
reputation, and the possibility of such disclosure would dissuade them from purchasing
expressive works from Amazon. Id. at 1160, 1163, 1168.3 Consistent with its privacy practices,
Amazon likewise sought to protect this information from disclosure. The court agreed with this
request, finding that “Amazon and the Intervenors have established that the First Amendment
protects the disclosure of individual’s reading, listening, and viewing habits.” Id. at 1168.
B.

The Amazon Echo

The Amazon Echo is a 9.3-inch voice-controlled speaker equipped with seven
microphones, which use beam-forming technology to pick up sound from anywhere in the room,
even when music is playing. Stanford Aff. ¶ 6. When in standby mode, Echo is available to
recognize the “wake word,” which activates the device.4 Id. ¶ 7. When it detects the wake word,
Echo connects remotely to the Alexa Voice Service – Amazon’s intelligent personal assistant –
and transmits audio to the Alexa Voice Service in the cloud to process and respond to the user’s
request. Id. When Echo is capturing and transmitting audio to the cloud, a blue light on the
device is illuminated. Id. Echo’s microphones can also be manually disabled by a user by
pressing a mute button, in which case a red light on the device is illuminated and power to the
microphones is cut off. Id.

3

For example, intervenors in the Lay case explained that they had purchased, among other things, “self-help” books
from Amazon explaining how to obtain a divorce and restraining order against an abusive spouse, books that
revealed political affiliations, books about atheism, and books about coping with specific mental health conditions.
See Complaint in Intervention for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, Amazon.com LLC v. Lay, No. 1:10-cv-00664MJP, ECF No. 61, ¶¶ 68-127 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 16, 2010).
4

The default wake word is “Alexa” but it can be changed by a user to “Amazon,” “Echo,” or “Computer.” Stanford
Aff. ¶ 7, n.1.

4
4812-9258-0673v.28 0051461-001338

 When the Alexa Voice Service receives and processes a user’s audio query, Alexa
responds with the requested information or content, or else might state that it is unable to
understand the request or to provide the information requested. Stanford Aff. ¶ 8. No audio
recording of the user’s request is stored on the device itself. Id. Instead, an audio recording and
a transcript of the request is stored on Amazon’s servers, none of which are located in Arkansas.
Id. Alexa’s response to the request or a depiction of the source material (for example, the album
cover for a song requested and played) may also be stored. Id. All data is protected during
transmission and securely stored. Id.
Users convey, and the Alexa Voice Service returns, expressive content through their
Alexa-enabled devices. Stanford Aff. ¶ 9. For example, as the search warrant affidavit in this
case notes, Echo can be commanded to, among other things, play music, stream podcasts, play
audio books, request information about various subjects, or request “real-time information,”
including news, weather, and traffic conditions related to the user’s or any other location. Id.
For example, users may ask for information about a sensitive health condition or a controversial
political figure. Id. Users can also now order products from Amazon, including books and other
expressive materials, using the Alexa Voice Service. Id.
Echo customers can access and review all voice interactions with Alexa through the
Alexa App, which is available for Android, Apple, and Fire devices, and desktop browsers.
Stanford Aff. ¶ 10. Customers have the ability to listen to their voice recordings, view
transcripts of those recordings, and delete any or all past recordings. Id. In this case, the
defendant’s Alexa account remains available and accessible to him, and no recordings have been
deleted from the requested time period. Id. ¶ 16.

5
4812-9258-0673v.28 0051461-001338

 C.

Procedural Posture

Amazon brings this motion to quash a search warrant that was issued as part of the
Bentonville Police Department’s investigation into the death of Victor Collins, which is believed
to have occurred at the residence of the defendant James Bates either late in the evening of
November 21, 2015, or early in the morning of November 22. According to the search warrant
affidavit, the victim’s body was found by the Bentonville Police on the morning of November 22
after they responded to a 911 call from the defendant. Stanford Aff. Ex. A-1. The defendant was
arrested on February 22, 2016, and charged with first-degree murder. He pleaded not guilty and
is currently released on bail pending trial.
During a search of the defendant’s residence on December 3, 2015, the Bentonville
Police seized an Echo device located in the kitchen. Stanford Aff. Ex. A-1. On December 4,
2015, the Bentonville Police emailed a preservation request to Amazon for all records associated
with the Echo device. Id. ¶ 11. Amazon promptly and fully complied with that preservation
request. Id.
On December 4, 2015, the Bentonville Police also obtained a search warrant directed to
Amazon, and later served that warrant on Amazon. Stanford Aff. ¶ 12. On January 29, 2016, the
Bentonville Police obtained and served on Amazon an extension of the warrant. Id. Both the
original search warrant and the extension specified that the Bentonville Police should search for
and seize “audio recordings, transcribed records, or other text records related to communications
and transactions” between the Echo device and Amazon’s servers during the 48-hour period of
November 21 through 22, 2015, as well as subscriber and account information. Id. Exs. A-1, A2. The search warrant included a non-disclosure requirement stating that “Amazon.com and any
other involved party shall not supply information of this search warrant to anyone other than
those necessary to comply with this search warrant.” Id.
6
4812-9258-0673v.28 0051461-001338

 On February 8, 2016, Amazon partially complied with the warrant by producing
subscriber information and purchase history for the defendant’s Amazon account. Stanford Aff.
¶ 13. Amazon has not yet produced any recordings or transcripts. Id.
On April 18, 2016, the State filed in the public records of the Circuit Clerk’s office a
search warrant return, along with the search warrants and supporting affidavits, accurately
informing the Court that Amazon “eventually complied with the search warrants on February 8,
2016, but only supplied a portion of what was requested in both search warrants.” Stanford Aff.
¶ 14, Ex. A. Amazon was not served with a copy of the State’s April 18, 2016 filing. Id. ¶ 14.
On June 28, 2016, the Bentonville Police obtained a search warrant for data contained on
the defendant’s Echo device, the defendant’s Huawei Nexus cell phone, and the victim’s LG cell
phone, all of which had been previously seized. Stanford Aff. Ex. B. According to a search
warrant return filed by the State in the public records of the Circuit Clerk’s office on August 26,
2016, the Bentonville Police were able to “extract the data” from the Echo device and the LG
cell phone, but not from the Nexus cell phone. Id.5
The June 28, 2016 search warrant return also indicated that the Bentonville Police were
unable to extract any data from the defendant’s Nexus cell phone “due to the device being
encrypted at the chipset level.” Stanford Aff. Ex. B. If the defendant had installed the Alexa
App, and the cell phone could be accessed, then any stored audio recordings, transcripts of
recordings, and records of responses from Alexa would be accessible on the cell phone. Id. ¶ 10.
The search warrant to Amazon received widespread coverage by local, national, and
international news outlets following a December 27, 2016 article on the technology news website

5

Data extracted from the Echo device would not have included any voice recordings from Alexa because such data
is stored remotely. Stanford Aff. ¶ 8.

7
4812-9258-0673v.28 0051461-001338

 The Information discussing the efforts by the Bentonville Police in this case to obtain data from
the Echo device, and warning readers to “[b]e careful what you say around your Amazon Echo.”
Stanford Aff. ¶ 17.6 Soon after the December 27, 2016 article was published, the State informed
Amazon that it intended to pursue full compliance with the search warrant. Id. ¶ 18.
Virtually all of the press coverage has centered on privacy concerns.7 Indeed, both the
State and the defense in this case have made public statements to the press about the matter, and
those comments have at times also focused on user privacy. See Stanford Aff. ¶ 19, Ex. D.

6

See, e.g., Tom Dotan & Reed Albergotti, “Amazon Echo and the Hot Tub Murder,” The Information (Dec. 27,
2016), https://www.theinformation.com/amazon-echo-and-the-hot-tub-murder?eu=1HJyR6S41hGbiyraV-j7Jw
(attached as Exhibit C to the Stanford Affidavit). See also, e.g., Max Bradley, “Bentonville police try to tap hightech devices for murder case clues,” Arkansas Times: Arkansas Blog (Dec. 28, 2016);
http://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/archives/2016/12/28/bentonville-police-try-to-tap-high-tech-devices-formurder-case-clues; Eliott C. McLaughlin & Keith Allen, “Alexa, can you help with this murder case?,” CNN (Dec.
28, 2016), http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/28/tech/amazon-echo-alexa-bentonville-arkansas-murder-casetrnd/; Elizabeth Weise, “Police ask Alexa: Who dunnit,” USA Today (Dec. 29, 2016),
http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2016/12/27/amazon-alexa-echo-murder-case-bentonville-hot-tub-jamesandrew-bates/95879532/; Billy Steele, “Police seek Amazon Echo data in murder case (updated),” Engadget (Dec.
27, 2016), https://www.engadget.com/2016/12/27/amazon-echo-audio-data-murder-case/; Amy B. Wang, Can Alexa
help solve a murder? Police think so – but Amazon won’t give up her data,” Wash. Post. (Dec. 28,
2016), https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/12/28/can-alexa-help-solve-a-murder-policethink-so-but-amazon-wont-give-up-her-data/?utm_term=.bdba2356dffa; Sean Gallagher, “Police ask: ‘Alexa, did
you witness a murder?,’” Ars Technica (Dec. 28, 2016), http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/12/police-askalexa-did-you-witness-a-murder/; Erik Ortiz, “Prosecutors Get Warrant for Amazon Echo Data in Arkansas Murder
Case,” NBC News (Dec. 28, 2016), http://www.nbcnews.com/tech/internet/prosecutors-get-warrant-amazon-echodata-arkansas-murder-case-n700776; Christopher Mele, “Bid for Access to Amazon Echo Audio in Murder Case
Raises Privacy Concerns,” N.Y. Times (Dec. 28, 2016), https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/28/business/amazonecho-murder-case-arkansas.html; “Arkansas Prosecutors Seek Possible Evidence for Murder From Amazon Echo
Device,” ABC News (Dec. 29, 2016), http://abcnews.go.com/US/arkansas-prosecutors-seek-evidence-murderamazon-echo-device/story?id=44439545; “Murder squad sought Amazon Echo data,” BBC News (Dec. 28, 2016),
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-38450658; Alfred Ng, “Police request Echo recordings for homicide
investigation,” CNET (Dec. 27, 2016), https://www.cnet.com/news/police-request-echo-recordings-for-homicideinvestigation/; Tom Brant, “Amazon Alexa data wanted in murder investigation, Fox News (Dec. 28, 2016),
http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2016/12/28/amazon-alexa-data-wanted-in-murder-investigation.html; David Lohr,
“Amazon Refuses To Comply With Police Request In Arkansas Murder Case,” Huffington Post (Dec. 28, 2016),
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/amazon-arkansas-murder-case_us_58642d86e4b0eb586488082c; Tony
Bradley, “How Amazon Echo Users Can Control Privacy,” Forbes (Jan. 5, 2017),
http://www.forbes.com/sites/tonybradley/2017/01/05/alexa-is-listening-but-amazon-values-privacy-and-gives-youcontrol/#46ddbfb95eed; Agatha French, “Alexa may be listening, but will she tell on you?,” L.A. Times (Jan. 5,
2017), http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-amazon-echo-privacy-qa-20170105-story.html.
7

See, e.g., Sean Gallagher, “Police ask: ‘Alexa, did you witness a murder?,’” Ars Technica (Dec. 28, 2016),
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/12/police-ask-alexa-did-you-witness-a-murder/ (warning consumers that “it
may behoove you to watch what you say around your Echo”); Billy Steele, “Police seek Amazon Echo data in
murder case (updated),” Engadget (Dec. 27, 2016), https://www.engadget.com/2016/12/27/amazon-echo-audio-data-

8
4812-9258-0673v.28 0051461-001338

 ARGUMENT8
A.

The First Amendment Applies to Alexa’s Audio Recordings and Responses

Once the Echo device detects the wake word, the Alexa Voice Service endeavors to
respond to any ensuing voice communications detected in the user’s home. Accordingly,
searching Alexa’s recordings is not the same as searching a drawer, a pocket, or a glove
compartment. Like cell phones, such modern “smart” electronic devices contain a multitude of
data that can “reveal much more in combination than any isolated record,” allowing those with
access to it to reconstruct “[t]he sum of an individual’s private life.” Riley v. California, 134 S.
Ct. 2473, 2489 (2014). The recordings stored by Amazon for a subscriber’s Echo device will
usually be both (1) the user’s speech, in the form of a request for information from Alexa, and
(2) a transcript or depiction of the Alexa Voice Service response conveying the information it
determines would be most responsive to the user’s query. Both types of information are
protected speech under the First Amendment.

murder-case/ (“the request for stored Echo information raises a bigger question about privacy”); Elizabeth Weise,
“Police ask Alexa: Who dunnit,” USA Today (Dec. 29, 2016),
http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2016/12/27/amazon-alexa-echo-murder-case-bentonville-hot-tub-jamesandrew-bates/95879532/ (discussing concerns with information stored by Echo and similar devices in light of the
instant case); Blake Montgomery, “A Murder Case Highlights The Amazon Echo’s Big Privacy Concerns,”
BuzzFeed (Dec. 27, 2016), https://www.buzzfeed.com/blakemontgomery/cops-in-arkansas-are-trying-to-solve-amurder-with-amazon-ec (“The Amazon Echo speaker you got for Christmas may have privacy concerns in the
package — the device, whose always-listening AI is one of its key features, could record and store information you
wouldn’t want law enforcement to access.”); Tony Bradley, “How Amazon Echo Users Can Control Privacy,”
Forbes (Jan. 5, 2017), http://www.forbes.com/sites/tonybradley/2017/01/05/alexa-is-listening-but-amazon-valuesprivacy-and-gives-you-control/#46ddbfb95eed (“The idea that Alexa is always listening or may somehow
incriminate you is a concern for owners of the Amazon … devices.”).
8

By its own terms, the search warrant has expired. The original warrant was dated December 4, 2015, and in
accordance with Ark. R. Crim. P. 13.2(c), the Court authorized execution of the warrant within 60 days. On
January 29, 2016, the warrant was extended to allow for another 60 days. Accordingly, the warrant expired more
than 10 months ago, on March 29, 2016, and no further extension or revised warrant was sought or obtained. That
notwithstanding, Amazon does not intend to challenge the warrant on this ground.

9
4812-9258-0673v.28 0051461-001338

 1.

Amazon Users’ Requests to Alexa Are Protected
by the First Amendment

It is well established that the First Amendment protects not only an individual’s right to
speak, but also his or her “right to receive information and ideas.” Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S.
557, 564 (1969); see also Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 482 (1965) (“The right of
freedom of speech and press includes not only the right to utter or to print, but the right to
distribute, the right to receive, the right to read … and freedom of inquiry ….”). At the heart of
that First Amendment protection is the right to browse and purchase expressive materials
anonymously, without fear of government discovery. See, e.g., McIntyre v. Ohio Elections
Comm’n, 514 U.S. 334, 357 (1995); Lamont v. Postmaster Gen., 381 U.S. 301, 307 (1965).
For this reason, courts have recognized that government demands for records of an
individual’s requests for and purchases of expressive material implicate First Amendment
concerns. For example, when independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr demanded records of
Monica Lewinsky’s book purchases from a local bookstore as part of his investigation of former
President Bill Clinton, the court held that the request implicated First Amendment concerns,
requiring the government to make a heightened showing to obtain the requested information. In
re Grand Jury Subpoena to Kramerbooks & Afterwords Inc., 26 Media L. Rep. at 1599-1601.9
Following that precedent, the Colorado Supreme Court held that law enforcement was
required to make a similar heightened showing before forcing a bookstore to produce records –
in response to a search warrant – concerning whether a suspect had purchased two “how-to”
books on drug laboratories that were found at the scene of a methamphetamines lab operating out

9

Ultimately, the dispute was resolved when Ms. Lewinsky agreed to provide the independent counsel with
information about her own book purchases, avoiding the need to seek this information from the bookstore. See
David Streitfeld, “Starr Will Get Bookstore Records,” Wash. Post (June 23, 1998), available at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/starr062398.htm.

10
4812-9258-0673v.28 0051461-001338

 of the suspect’s trailer. Tattered Cover, 44 P.3d at 1056-59. As Justice Douglas of the Supreme
Court once warned: “Once the government can demand of a publisher the names of the
purchasers of his publications, the free press as we know it disappears. Then the spectre of a
government agent will look over the shoulder of everyone who reads. The purchase of a book or
pamphlet today may result in a subpoena tomorrow.” United States v. Rumely, 345 U.S. 41, 5758 (1953) (Douglas, J., concurring).
Here, as the search warrant affidavit recognizes, Amazon customers use their Alexaenabled devices to request a variety of information and expressive material, including “music
playback,” “streaming podcasts,” and “playing audio books.” Given these functions, Amazon’s
recordings of its customers’ requests for information through the devices are subject to the
heightened protections of the First Amendment.10
2.

Alexa’s Responses to User Queries Are Protected by the First
Amendment

In addition to the recordings of user requests for information, Alexa’s responses are also
protected by the First Amendment. First, as noted above, the responses may contain expressive
material, such as a podcast, an audiobook, or music requested by the user. Second, the response
itself constitutes Amazon’s First Amendment-protected speech. In a similar context, courts have
recognized that “the First Amendment protects as speech the results produced by an Internet
search engine.” Zhang v. Baidu.com Inc., 10 F. Supp. 3d 433, 435 (S.D.N.Y. 2014). Alexa’s
decision about what information to include in its response, like the ranking of search results, is
“constitutionally protected opinion” that is “entitled to ‘full constitutional protection.’” Search

10

In addition to its own rights, Amazon has standing to assert the First Amendment rights of its customers. Virginia
v. Am. Booksellers Ass’n, 484 U.S. 383, 392-93 (1988).

11
4812-9258-0673v.28 0051461-001338

 King, Inc. v. Google Tech., Inc., 2003 WL 21464568, at *4 (W.D. Okla. May 27, 2003) (citation
omitted).
B.

Under the Heightened Standard, the State Must Make a Threshold Showing
of Compelling Need for the Requested Information and Sufficient Nexus to
the Investigation

Courts have consistently applied a heightened level of scrutiny when the government
seeks First Amendment-protected material, whether through a search warrant, grand jury
subpoena, or other demand. In such cases, it is the government’s burden to show both that (1) it
has a “compelling interest” in the requested information and (2) there is a “sufficient nexus”
between the information sought and the underlying inquiry of the investigation. In re Grand
Jury Subpoenas Duces Tecum, 78 F.3d 1307, 1312 (8th Cir. 1996) (applying heightened standard
to grand jury subpoena for records of campaign contributions); In re Faltico, 561 F.2d 109, 111
(8th Cir. 1977) (per curiam) (applying heightened standard to grand jury subpoena for
membership of trade association); see also, e.g., In re Grand Jury Investigation of Possible
Violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1461, 706 F. Supp. 2d at 13, 16-21 (applying heightened standard to
grand jury subpoena seeking to compel company to produce records of customer purchases of
movies); Tattered Cover, 44 P.3d 1044 (applying heightened standard to search warrant for
criminal suspect’s book purchase records); In re Grand Jury Subpoena to Kramerbooks &
Afterwords, 26 Media L. Rep. at 1601 (applying heightened standard to grand jury subpoena for
Monica Lewinsky’s book-purchase records).
In particular, courts have repeatedly applied this heightened standard to government
requests for customer information from Amazon. In In re Grand Jury Subpoena to Amazon.com
dated August 7, 2006, the court held that the government must show a compelling need to obtain
buyers’ personal identities and titles of books purchased through Amazon from a seller suspected
of tax evasion. 246 F.R.D. at 572-73. In Amazon.com LLC v. Lay, the court considered a request
12
4812-9258-0673v.28 0051461-001338

 from the North Carolina Department of Revenue seeking information about sales of all
purchases, including expressive works, to North Carolina buyers as part of an audit to determine
tax liability for purchases from Amazon. Because the court found that Amazon “established that
the First Amendment protects the disclosure of individual's reading, listening, and viewing
habits,” the court required the government to show a “compelling government interest,” that
“less restrictive means to achieve the government’s needs are not available,” and that there was a
“substantial relation” between the information sought and the compelling state interest – and
found that the government failed to meet that burden. 758 F. Supp. 2d at 1168-69.
Similarly, a court in Florida applied the heightened standard to a search warrant for an
Amazon customer’s purchase of expressive materials in a homicide investigation. The court
required that there be a “compelling need,” a “substantial nexus” between the information sought
and the subject under investigation, and that the government had “exhausted all other avenues to
obtain the information in ways that do not burden First Amendment rights.” In that case, the
court found the burden to be satisfied after in camera review of the requested materials. In re
Search Warrant, Pinellas Cty. (6th Jud. Cir. Ct., Pinellas Cty., Fla., Mar. 7, 2013 (attached
hereto as Exhibit 2)).
In practice, the heightened standard is similar to “strict scrutiny” – the level of review
required when government action collides with First Amendment-protected activity. Implicit in
the requirement that the government’s interest be “compelling” and that the information have a
“sufficient nexus” to that interest are additional factors that are often used in the strict-scrutiny
analysis, such as whether the request sweeps more broadly than necessary and whether the
information can be obtained from another source. As the Tattered Cover court observed, “law
enforcement officials’ need for the information sought cannot be compelling if there are

13
4812-9258-0673v.28 0051461-001338

 reasonable alternate ways of conducting an investigation” and, accordingly, “[o]fficials must
exhaust these alternatives before resorting to techniques that implicate fundamental expressive
rights.” 44 P.3d at 1058-59.
The reason for this heightened standard is that government requests for expressive
information, by their very nature, chill the exercise of First Amendment rights. As another court
explained, the knowledge that government agents are seeking records concerning customer
purchases of expressive material from Amazon “would frost keyboards across America.” In re
Grand Jury Subpoena to Amazon.com dated August 7, 2006, 246 F.R.D. at 573. Indeed, “rumors
of an Orwellian federal criminal investigation into the reading habits of Amazon’s customers
could frighten countless potential customers” into cancelling their online purchases through
Amazon, “now and perhaps forever,” resulting in a chilling effect on the public’s willingness to
purchase expressive materials. Id.
Absent such protection for customers to seek and obtain expressive content, “the free
flow of newsworthy information would be restrained and the public’s understanding of important
issues and events would be hampered in ways inconsistent with a healthy republic.” Ashcraft v.
Conoco, Inc., 218 F.3d 282, 287 (4th Cir. 2000). Indeed, the publicity generated by this search
warrant in particular has led to numerous articles raising concerns about the use of Alexaenabled devices and other in-home intelligent personal assistants, and in particular whether use
of such devices exposes customers’ audio recordings and information requests to government
review.11 Such government demands inevitably chill users from exercising their First
Amendment rights to seek and receive information and expressive content in the privacy of their
own home, conduct which lies at the core of the Constitution. To guard against such a chilling

11

See supra notes 6-7.

14
4812-9258-0673v.28 0051461-001338

 effect, this Court should require the State to make a prima facie showing that it has a compelling
need for any recordings that were created as a result of interactions with the Echo device, and
that the State’s request bears a sufficient nexus to the underlying investigation.
C.

If the Threshold Showing Is Met, the Court Should Review the Requested
Material In Camera to Determine If Production is Warranted

If the State makes a prima facie showing that it has met its threshold heightened burden
with respect to the type and scope of material sought, this Court should conduct an in camera
review of any recordings in order to determine if, in fact, this material meets the heightened
requirements for its production. In camera review is proper to ensure that First Amendment
concerns are properly protected with respect to the specific materials requested. See, e.g., In re
Search Warrant, Pinellas Cty. (Ex. 2 hereto) (reviewing materials sought by search warrant in
camera to determine whether heightened standard was satisfied). The rules of this Court
specifically contemplate the use of in camera proceedings (Ark. R. Crim. P. 19.6), and such
proceedings are regularly used in analogous cases involving the assertion of privileges and
confidentiality concerns to determine whether the specific materials at issue should be shielded
from disclosure. See, e.g., Orsini v. State, 340 Ark. 665 (2000) (holding that in camera review
of report was appropriate to determine whether the report contained sensitive or confidential
information shielded from disclosure by applicable regulations). The State’s threshold showing
must be made before submission to the court in camera, since “forced disclosure of these
materials, even to a judge for in camera inspection, will have a deleterious effect” and “inhibit
the … exercise of First Amendment rights.” N.Y. Times Co. v. Jascalevich, 439 U.S. 1331,
1334-35 (1978) (Marshall, J., in chambers).

15
4812-9258-0673v.28 0051461-001338

 CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth herein, Amazon respectfully requests that this Court quash the
warrant for any audio recordings and transcripts that were created as a result of interactions with
the Echo device owned by the defendant and located in his residence, unless the State first
determines that the State has met its heightened showing of need and then, upon in camera
review, determines that the specific demand for this particular material satisfies the heightened
requirements.
Respectfully submitted,
AMAZON.COM, INC.,
Petitioner
By: /s/ Todd P. Lewis
Todd P. Lewis
Ark. Bar No. 96226
CONNER & WINTERS, LLP
4375 N. Vantage Drive, Suite 405
Fayetteville, AR 72703
Telephone: (479) 582-5711
Facsimile: (479) 587-1426
E-mail: tlewis@cwlaw.com
Laura R. Handman (pro hac vice to be filed)
John D. Seiver
Alison Schary
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
1919 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 800
Washington, D.C. 20006-3401
Telephone: (202) 973-4200
Facsimile: (202) 973-4499
E-mail: laurahandman@dwt.com
Counsel for Amazon.com, Inc.

16
4812-9258-0673v.28 0051461-001338

 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Todd P. Lewis, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing
document was served via U.S. Mail, postage prepaid on the following attorneys of record:
Nathan Smith
Stuart Cearley
Benton County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office
100 Northeast A Street
Bentonville, AR 72712
Kimberly Weber
Matthews, Campbell, Rhoads, McClure & Thompson, P.A.
119 S. Second Street
Rogers, AR 72756
This the 17th day of February, 2017.
/s/ Todd P. Lewis
Todd P. Lewis

17
4812-9258-0673v.28 0051461-001338

 EXHIBIT 1

Media Law Reporter

Source: Media Law Reporter Cases > U.S. District Courts, District of Columbia > Grand Jury Subpoena to Kramerbooks &
Afterwords Inc, In re, 26 Med.L.Rptr. 1599 (D.D.C. 1998)

26 Med.L.Rptr. 1599
Grand Jury Subpoena to Kramerbooks & Afterwords Inc, In re
U.S. District Court, District of Columbia
Misc. Action Nos. 98-135 (NHJ) and 98-138 (NHJ)
April 6, 1998

IN RE GRAND JURY SUBPOENA TO KRAMERBOOKS & AFTERWORDS INC.; IN RE
GRAND JURY SUBPOENA TO BARNES & NOBLE INC.

Headnotes
NEWSGATHERING
[1] Forced disclosure of information — Disclosure of unpublished information — In general (►60.1001)
Forced disclosure of information — Common law privilege (►60.20)
Subpoenas issued by office of independent counsel to two bookstores seeking titles of books purchased by
former White House intern chilled their First Amendment rights and those of intern, and office must submit ex
parte filing describing its need for materials sought and connection between information sought from
bookstores and grand jury investigation.

Case History and Disposition
Motion by non-party bookstores and former White House intern seeking to quash subpoenas issued by office of
independent counsel.
Office of independent counsel ordered to submit ex parte filing describing its need for materials sought and
connection between information sought and grand jury investigation.

Opinion Text
Opinion By:
Johnson, J.:

Full Text of Opinion
The Independent Counsel has issued a subpoena to Kramerbooks & afterwords, Inc. (“Kramerbooks”), an
independent bookstore and cafe in Dupont Circle. The subpoena requests “all documents and things referring or
relating to any purchase by Monica Lewinsky” from November 1995 to the present, including but not limited to
certain purchases made by check. Both Kramerbooks and Monica Lewinsky have moved to quash the subpoenas.
Barnes & Noble, a national chain of bookstores, has received a similar subpoena directed to one of its local stores,
1
and has moved to quash that subpoena. Before the Court are also briefs filed by amici curiae in support of the
motions to quash: one from the American Civil Liberties Union and the American Civil Liberties Union of the
National Capital Area and another from the American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression et al.
1
The Court finds that Kramerbooks and Barnes & Noble have standing to challenge the subpoena. See
Virginia v. American Booksellers Associations, 484 U.S. 383, 392-93 [14 Med.L.Rptr. 2145] (1988).

The Office of Independent Counsel (“OIC”) contends that the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. R.
Enterprises, 498 U.S. 292 (1991), governs the outcome of the motions to quash. In R. Enterprises, a federal grand
jury issued subpoenas to three companies its suspected of interstate transportation of obscene materials. Id. at
294. The subpoenas in that case sought corporate books and records
Page 1600
as well as copies of videotapes and the three companies moved to quash the subpoenas, arguing that the
materials sought were irrelevant to the grand jury's investigation and that the enforcement of the subpoenas was
likely to infringe upon their First Amendment rights. Id. at 294-95.

http://medialaw.bna.com/medw/display/batch_print_display.adp?searchid=2... 2/13/2017

 Media Law Reporter

The R. Enterprises Court decided that the movants' relevancy argument was unavailing because there existed a
“reasonable possibility that the category of materials the Government seeks will produce information relevant to
the general subject of the grand jury's investigation. Id. at 301. The Court went on to state: “The Court of Appeals
determined that the subpoenas did not satisfy Rule 17(c) and thus did not pass on the First Amendment issue. We
express no view on this issue and leave it to be resolved by the Court of Appeals.” Id. at 303. Because it did not
address the First Amendment question at issue here, R. Enterprises does not end the Court's inquiry.
The Court finds that the First Amendment is indeed implicated by the subpoenas to Kramerbooks and Barnes &
Noble. The First Amendment right to receive ideas “follows ineluctably from the sender's … right to send them” and
is also “a necessary predicate to the recipient's meaningful exercise of his own rights of speech, press, and political
freedom.” Board of Education v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853, 867 (1982); see also Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753,
762 (1972) (“In a variety of contexts this Court has referred to a First Amendment ‘right to receive information
and ideas.’ ”); Griswold v. Connecticut 381 U.S. 479, 482 (“The right of freedom of speech and press includes not
only the right to utter or to print, but the right to distribute, the right to receive, the right to read…”).
It is apparent that the materials sought by the subpoenas would disclose specific titles of books purchased by Ms.
Lewinsky, whose First Amendment rights are at issue here. See Virginia v. American Booksellers Association 484
U.S. 383, 393 [14 Med.L.Rptr. 2145] (1988) (recognizing First Amendment rights of bookbuyers). Kramerbooks
and Barnes & Noble are also engaged in constitutionally protected expressive activities. “The constitutional
guarantee of freedom of the press embraces the circulation of books as well as their publication.” Bantam Books,
Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U.S. 58, 65 n.6 [1 Med.L.Rptr. 1116] (1963). Justice Douglas emphasized the First
Amendment implications of revealing an individual's book purchases: “A requirement that a publisher disclose the
identity of those who buy his books, pamphlets, or papers is indeed the beginning of surveillance of the press …
Once the government can demand of a publisher the names of the purchasers of his publications, the free press as
we know it disappears … the purchase of a book or pamphlet today may result in a subpoena tomorrow.” United
States v. Rumely, 345 U.S. 41, 57 (1953) (Douglas, J., concurring); see also Denver Area Educational
Telecommunications Consortium Inc. v. FCC, 116 S.Ct. 2374, 2391 (1996) (finding that the requirement that
viewers must affirmatively request certain programming “will further restrict viewing by subscribers who fear for
their reputations should the operator, advertently or inadvertently, disclose the list of those who wish to watch the
‘patently offensive’ channel”); Lamont v. Postmaster General, 381 U.S. 301, 307 (1965) (finding unconstitutional
the requirement that an addressee file a written request with the post office to receive political propaganda
because such a requirement “is almost certain to have a deterrent effect”).
[ 1 ] The bookstores and Ms. Lewinsky have persuasively alleged a chilling effect on their First Amendment rights.
Many customers have informed Kramerbooks personnel that they will no longer shop at the bookstore because
they believed Kramerbooks to have turned documents over to the OIC that reveal a patron's choice of books.
Kramer Decl. at ¶17. Sales at the bookstore have also declined, id. at ¶18, and the store was picketed by a group
of librarians. Kramerbooks' Mot. to Quash at Exh. 2. Barnes & Nobles states that it believes the compelled
disclosure of this information will chill its First Amendment right to distribute reading material and its customers'
First Amendment right to have access to such material. Rosen Decl. at ¶8. Ms. Lewinsky alleges that her right to
purchase books has been chilled for fear of intrusion and embarrassment. Lewinsky's Mot. to Quash at p. 6.
The Supreme Court has never explicitly defined the standard under which a grand jury subpoena that implicates
the First Amendment must be examined, though it has noted, “We do not expect that courts will forget that grand
juries must operate within the limits of the First Amendment.” Branzburg v. Hayes,
Page 1601
408 U.S. 665, 710 [1 Med.L.Rptr. 2617] (1972). In Branzburg, the Supreme Court ruled that there was no
“reporter's privilege” and that reporters were obliged to respond to grand jury subpoenas and to answer questions
relevant to an investigation into the commission of crime just as any citizen would. The Court found that the First
Amendment did not apply to prevent the testimony; “neither the First Amendment nor any other constitutional
provision protects the average citizen from disclosing to a grand jury information that he has received in
confidence.” Id. at 682. The Court stated that, “[i]f the test is that the government ‘convincingly show a
substantial relation between the information sought and a subject of overriding and compelling state interest,’ ”
then that test was met in that case. Id. at 700-01 (citation omitted).
That test has been adopted by the courts of appeal facing the question of a grand jury subpoena implicating the
First Amendment. First, the government must demonstrate a compelling interest in the information sought or a
compelling need for the information sought. In re Grand Jury Subponea Duces Tecum, 78 F.3d 1307, 1312 (8th
Cir.) (holding that “a grand jury subpoena will be enforced despite a First Amendment challenge if the government
can demonstrate a compelling interest in … the information sought”), cert. denied 117 S.Ct. 432 (1996); In re
Grand Jury Proceedings, 776 F.2d 1099, 1102-03 (2d Cir. 1985) (holding that state interests must be “compelling”
and able to survive “exacting scrutiny” as to whether they are “sufficiently important to outweight the possibility of
infringement” of the First Amendment by a grand jury subpoena); In re Grand Subpoena, 701 F.2d 115, 119 (10th
Cur, 1983) (holding that, if the district court determines that enforcement of a subpoena would chill associational
rights, the government “must show a compelling need to obtain documents identifying petitioners' members”);
Bursey v. United States, 466 F.2d 1059, 1083 (9th Cir. 1972) (holding in the grand jury subpoena context that
“[w]hen governmental activity collides with First Amendment rights, the Government has the burden of
establishing that its interest are legitimate and compelling and that the incidental infringement upon First
Amendment rights is no greater than is essential to vindicate its subordinating interests”), overruled in part on
other grounds, In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 863 F.2d 667, 670 (9th Cir. 1988).

http://medialaw.bna.com/medw/display/batch_print_display.adp?searchid=2... 2/13/2017

 Media Law Reporter

Second, the government must also show a sufficient connection between the information sought and the grand
jury investigation where there is a First Amendment challenge to a grand jury subpoena. In re Grand Jury
Subpoena Duces Tecum, 78 F.3d at 1312 (holding that “a grand jury subpoena will be enforced despite a First
Amendment challenge if the government can demonstrate … a sufficient nexus between the information sought
and the subject matter of its investigation”); In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 776 F.2d at 1103 (holding that there
must be a “substantial relation” between the governmental interest and the information required to be disclosed.)
The Court finds, then, that it must determine whether the Office of Independent Counsel has a compelling need for
the materials it seeks and whether there is a sufficient connection between that information and the grand jury's
investigation. Because the OIC did not have an opportunity at the public hearing on this matter to make such a
submission, the Court will order that it do so at this time.
Accordingly it is this 6th day of April 1998,
ORDERED that the Office of Independent Counsel submit to the Court ex parte a filing describing its need for the
materials sought by the subpoenas to Kramerbooks and Barnes & Noble and the connection between the
information sought and the grand jury investigation, no later than Thursday, April 9, 1998, at 5:00 p.m.

ORDER
Before the Court are two motions of amici curiae. The Court has previously granted the motion of American
Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression et al (“American Booksellers move to file their amicus brief on the
public record. Also pending is the motion of the American Civil Liberties Union and the American Civil Liberties
Union of the National Capital Area for leave to file a memorandum of law as amici curiae in support of
Kramerbooks' motion to quash a grand jury subpoena.
Upon consideration of these motions, it is this 6th day of April 1998.
Page 1602
ORDERED that the motion of the American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression et al for leave to file their
amici curiae brief on the public record be, and hereby is, granted; it is further
ORDERED that the motion of the American Civil Liberties Union and the American Civil Liberties Union of the
National Capital Area for leave to file a memorandum of law as amici curiae in support of Kramerbooks' motion to
quash a grand jury subpoena, be, and hereby is, granted; it is further
ORDERED that the motions of amici curiae American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression et al, and the
American Civil Liberties Union and the American Civil Liberties Union of the National Capital Area in support of the
motion of Kramerbooks to quash a grand jury subpoena be, and hereby are, unsealed.
- End of Case -

Contact us at http://www.bna.com/contact-us/ or call 1-800-372-1033
ISSN 1944-0359
Copyright © 2017, The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. Reproduction or redistribution, in whole or in part, and in any
form, without express written permission, is prohibited except as permitted by the BNA Copyright Policy.
http://www.bna.com/corp/index.html#V

http://medialaw.bna.com/medw/display/batch_print_display.adp?searchid=2... 2/13/2017

 EXHIBIT 2

SEARCH WARRANT

STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF PINELLAS

THIS WARRANT IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO FLORIDA STATUTE 92.605. A
RESPONSE IS DUE WITHIN 20 OF RECEIFT OF THIS NARRANT
UNLESS A LONGER TIME PERIOD IS STATED HEREIN.
TO THE SHERIFF DEPUTY SHERIFFS OF PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA
OR ANY INVESTIGATOR WITH THE STATE OFFICE OF THE SIXTH
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, OR ANY POLICE OFFICER OF
THE CITY OF CLEARWATER POLICE DEPARTMENT

The Court having read the Affidavit for Search Warrant coming
on to be heard and the Court having examined the Affiant, Joseph
Ruhlin, Detective, Clearwater Police Department, and having been
satisfied that the facts as alleged do exist, and that the laws of
the State of Florida, Chapter 782.04, Homicide, are being violated
as alleged, and/or property which constitutes evidence relevant to
proving that said crime, Homicide, has been committed, is located
therein, upon review in camera of the requested information and a
finding that the requested information includes expressive content
and private information. protected by the First Amendment, the
Florida Constitution, and the Video Privacy Protection. Act of
1988, and that a heightened showing of relevance and need must be
made before issuing the Search Warrant, and having found a
compelling' need does exist only for the requested information
identified by this Court in the Affidavit, a substantial nexus is
demonstrated between the information identified by this Court in
the Affidavit and the subject of the criminal investigation; and

the State of Florida has exhausted all other avenues to obtain the

information in ways that do not burden First Amendment rights, a

A.

Search Warrant is hereby allowed pursuant to Article I, Section 23
of the Florida Constitution, F.S. 934 and T18, USC, Section 2703
and T18, USC, Section 2710 and is issued to search the premises
described in the Affidavit for Search Warrant, to~witz
Amazon.com, LLC, Attn: Legal Department - Search Warrant, 300

Deschutes Way SW, Suite 304, Tumwater, WA 98501, regarding

records for the Amazon.com account of and/or 
-who utilizes E?mail account: ?between
May 1, 2010 and February 29, 2012, as described in the Affidavit
for Search Warrant sworn by the Affiant, Joseph Ruhlin, Detective,
Clearwater Police Department.

THESE PRESENTS THEREFORE are to command you with the
necessary and proper assistance as the exigencies of the occasion
may demand or require, either in the daytime or the nighttime, and
on any day of the week, including Sunday, in or on said premises,
to diligently search for the herein described property, to-wit:
titles and authors (including the ASIN) of Book purchases, Digital

Ebook purchases, and/or Audio Book purchases for the Amazon.com

account of ?and/or?who utilizes El?mail
account: ?between May 1, 2010 and February

29, 2012, as described in the Affidavit for Search Warrant, and if
the same shall be found, to seize same and to return to a Court
having jurisdiction, a complete inventory of the evidence seized.
The tangible evidence seized shall be maintained at the law
enforcement agency as evidence, within the constructive custody of

the Court, until further Order of the Court of competent

jurisdiction.

YOU ARE FURTHER ORDERED that in accordance with F.S. 92.605,
service may be made by hand, United States mail, overnight
delivery service, or facsimile as the circumstances permit, and a
copy of the Search Warrant be provided to the Custodian of Records
with a complete inventory of the property seized.

Custodian of Records, Amazon.com, LLC, Attn: Legal
Department Search Warrant, 300 Deschutes Way SW, Suite 304,
Tumwater, WA 98501, may comply with this Warrant in a timely
manner by forwarding the requested material to Bernie McCabe,
State Attorney, Attn: Doyle aburdan (C.I.D.), by hand or United
States mail, at 14250 49th St. North, Room 1000, Clearwater, FL
33762; or to P.O. Box 5028, Clearwater, FL 33758; or by overnight
delivery service; or sent in electronic format by email, to
or facsimile, to
727/464~7650.

The Court further finds good cause to seal the Affidavit of
the Affiant and to Order the sealed Affidavit be attached to the
Warrant when filed with the Clerk of the Court, in accordance with
Chapter 933, until further Order of a Court of competent

jurisdiction. The Return will itemize the inventory of property

seized, but will act identify the content of any expra?aive
content seized.

DONE AND ORDERED in Pinellas County, Florida, this day

of ,2013,
IL onzx


CIRCUIT JUDGEL
PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORID



EXHIBIT 3

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF BENTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS

STATE OF ARKANSAS . PLAINTIFF
v, CASE NO. 
JAMES A. BATES DEFENDANT

AFFIDAVIT OF JEFF STANFORD

STATE OF WASHINGTON 
COUNTY OF KING ss.

Comes now the affiant, Jeff Stanford, of lawful age and having first been duly sworn, on
oath hereby and states as follows:

1. I am the Law Enforcement Response Team Manager at Amazon.com, Inc.
(?Amazon?), Petitioner herein.

2. The following is based on my personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein
and/or on information made available to me in the course of performing my duties at
Amazon. To the extent that the facts and matters set out in this af?davit are within my
knowledge, I believe them to be true. To the extent I have relied upon information made
available to me, those facts are true to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief.

3. I submit this affidavit and its accompanying exhibits in support of Amazon?s

motion to quash the search warrant served on Amazon in this proceeding.

482 l-3288?3265v. ll 0051461001338

 

Amazon

4. Amazon is one of the world?s leading oniine retailers, selling books, music,
movies, and other types of products to millions of customers worldwide, and it seeks to be
Earth?s most customer~centric company.

5. Amazon takes very seriously any attempts to invade the privacy of its customers,
and Amazon advises customers of its privacy practices including that Amazon does not
voluntarily share its customers? product choices in a Privacy Notice linked at the bottom of
neariy every page on Amazon?s website. See 

The Amazon Echo

6. The Amazon Echo is a 9.3~inch voice-controlled speaker equipped with seven
microphones, which use beam-forming technology to pick up sound from anywhere in the room,
even when music is playing.

7. When in standby mode, Echo is available to recognize the ?wake? word, which
activates the device.1 When it detects the wake word, Echo connects remotely to the Alexa
Voice Service Amazon?s intelligent personal assistant and transmits audio to the Alexa Voice
Service in the cloud to process and respond to the user?s request. When Echo is capturing and
transmitting audio to the cloud, a blue light on the device is illuminated. Echo?s microphones
can also be manually disabled by a user by pressing a mute button, in which case a red Eight on
the device is illuminated and power to the microphones is cut off.

8. When the Alexa Voice Service receives and processes a user?s audio query, Alexa
responds with the requested information or content, or else might state that it is unable to

understand the request or to provide the information requested. No audio recording of the user? 

 

The default wake word is ?Alexa? but it can be changed by a user to ?Amazon,? ?Echo,? or ?Computer.?

4821-3283-3265v.11 0053461?001338

 

request is stored on the device itself. Instead, an audio recording and a transcript of the request is
stored on Amazon?s servers, none of which are located in Arkansas. Alexa?s response to the
request or a depiction of the source material (for example, the album cover for a song requested
and played) may also be stored. All data is protected during transmission and securely stored.

9. Users convey, and the Alexa Voice Service returns, expressive content through
their Alexa-enabled devices. For example, as the search warrant af?davit in this case notes,
Echo can be commanded to, among other things, play music, stream podcasts, play audio books,
request information about various subjects, or request ?real-time information,? including news,
weather, and traf?c conditions related to the user?s or any other location. For example, users
may ask for information about a sensitive health condition or a controversial political ?gure.
Users can also now order products from Amazon, including books and other expressive
materials, using the Alexa Voice Service.

10. Echo customers can access and review all voice interactions with Alexa through
the Alexa App, which is available for Android, Apple, and Fire devices, and desktop browsers.
Customers have the ability to listen to their voice recordings, view transcripts of those
recordings, and delete any or all past recordings.

he Search Warrant

11.' On December 4, 2015, the Bentonville Police emailed a preservation request to
Amazon for all records associated with an Echo device seized from the defendant?s residence.
Amazon and fully complied with that preservation request.

12. On December 4, 2015, the Bentonville Police also obtained a search warrant
directed to Amazon, and later served that warrant on Amazon. On January 29, 2016, the

Bentonville Police obtained and served on Amazon an extension of the warrant.

482 i-3288-3265v.1i 0051461-001338

 

13. On February 8, 2016, Amazon partialiy complied with the warrant by producing
subscriber information and purchase history for the defendant?s Amazon account. Amazon has.
not yet produced any recordings or transcripts.

14. On April 18, 2016, the State ?led in the public records of the Circuit Clerk?s
of?ce a search warrant return, along with the search warrants and supporting af?davits,
accurately informing the Court that Amazon ?eventually complied with the search warrants on
February 8, 2016, but only supplied a portion of what was requested in both search warrants.?
Attached as Exhibit A is a true and correct mm of the search warrant return ?led in the public
records of the Circuit Clerk?s of?ce by the State on April 18, 2016, attaching the search warrant
extension and supporting af?davit (Exhibit A-1) and the original search warrant and supporting
af?davit (Exhibit A-2) served on Amazon. Amazon was not served with a copy of the State?s
April 18, 2016 ?ling.

15. On August 26, 2016, the State ?led in the public records of the Circuit Clerk?s
of?ce a search warrant return, along with the search warrant and supporting af?davits, for data
contained on the defendant?s Echo device, the defendant?s Huawei Nexus cell phone, and the
victim?s LG cell phone, all of which had been previously seized, according to the search warrant.
Attached as Exhibit is a true and correct copy of the search warrant return ?led in the public
records of the Circuit Clerk?s of?ce by the State on August 26, 2016, attaching the search
warrant and supporting af?davit for data stored on devices seized from the defendant?s
residence.

16. The defendant?s Alexa account remains available and accessible to him, and no

recordings have been deleted from the requested time period.

4821-3288-3265v. ll 0051461-001333

 

News Coverage of the Search Warrant

17. The search warrant to Amazon received widespread coverage by local, national,
and international news outlets, following a December 27, 2016 article on the technology news
website The Information discussing the efforts by the Bentonville Police in this case to obtain
data from the Echo device, and warning readers to careful what you say around your
Amazon Echo,? Attached as Exhibit is a true and correct cOpy of the December 27, 2016
article by Tom Dotan and Reed Albergotti, titled ?Amazon Echo and the Hot Tub Murder,?
which was printed from the website The Information, available at



18. Soon after the December 27, 2016 article was published, the State informed
Amazon that it intended to pursue full compliance with the search warrant.

19. Virtually all of the press coverage has centered on privacy concerns. Indeed, both
the State and the defense in this case have made public statements to the press about the matter,
and those comments have at times also focused on user privacy. Attached as Exhibit is a
collection of certain news articles containing on-the?record comment from counsel for the
defendant and the State, respectively, concerning the Amazon search warrant, as follows:

a. ?Arkansas Prosecutors Seek Possible Evidence for Murder From Amazon
Echo Device,? ABC News (Dec. 29, 2016), available at

id=4443 9545 

b. Erik Ortiz, ?Prosecutors Get Warrant for Amazon Echo Data in Arkansas

Murder Case,? NBC News (Dec. 28, 2016), available at

4821-3288a3265v. 005146i-001338

 




e. Eliott C. McLaughlin Keith Allen, ?Alexa, can you help with this'murder
case?,? CNN (Dec. 28, 2016), available at




Further af?ant sayeth not.
I hereby declare under penaltyF of perjury under the laws of Washington that the foregoing

is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.



I kaf Stan'ford

 

Seattle, Washington

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 17th day of February, 2017. 

EMW 61 f9 l}

 

whim M,
Notary ublic

My Commission expires on: MOM. 

 

4321-3288-3265v.ll 0051461?001338

 

EXHIBIT A

Wt- 51

SEARCH WARRANT RETURN
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF BENTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS

I received the attached Search Warrant originally on the day of December,
2015, and also obtained a Search Warrant Extension on January 2016, and have
executed it as follows:

On the 4th day of December, I served a copy of the original search warrant on
Amazon and then served the Search Warrant Extension on January 2016 due to
Amazon not complying with our search warrant in its entirety. Amazon eventually
complied with the search warrants on February 2016, but only supplied a portion of
what was requested in both search warrants.

The following is an inventory of the property taken pursuant to the warrant:

Account Holder Information for James Bates and Purchase History

I swear that this inventory is a true and detailed account of all the property taken

by me on the Search Warrant.
3

t. Corporal Josh Woodhams
Bentonville Police Department

4.
Subscribed and sworn to and returned before me this /5 ~"day of 2016

Jana.


c: a:
EDI-U: '3-3
ITIITIZJ
223m 213
?ex ;3
Pt.(rDrn 

>00
33mm U1
(D

0q&\N rte-NR

EXHIBIT A-l

EXTENSION FOR SEARCH WARRANT

 

f?J

IN THE BENTON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT 8;

STATE OF ARKANSAS 

)ss 
COUNTY or BENTON 



.1. 1?
TO ANY SHERIFF, CONSTABLE 0R POLICE OFFICER IN THES

?0
an
F.)
d)

:2 
@203 C55
ARKANSAS: J1

(D

Af?davit having been made before me by Detective Corporal Josh Woodhams,
Bentonville Police Department, Criminal Investigations Division, has reason to believe

that Amazon.com is in possession of records related to a homicide investigation being
conducted by the Bentonville Police Department,

there is now being retained certain records, namely electronic data in the form of audio
recordings, transcribed records, or other text records related to communications and
transactions between an Amazon Echo device (FCC ID ZWJ-0823) that was located at
James A. Bates? residence of 3502 SW Elm Manor Avenue in Bentonville, Arkansas, and
Amazon.com?s servers and other computer hardware maintained by Amazon.com in
another location, between the time period of November 21?, 2015, at 0001 Hours Central
Standard Time and November 2015, at 2359 Hours Central Standard Time,

which are stored and maintained by Amazomcom, as well as the purchase and billing
history for the Amazon Echo device, the IP Address associated with Amazon Echo device
utilized by James A. Bates (White/Mule, DOB: 06/05/1984) (Email Addresses:
iamesbatee84@ggail.com; iaber84@gol.com; jaber84@gail.com;
iaber84@ahoo.com; and any other possible email associated with the above
mentioned subject), the Subscriber information for James A. Bates with Amazon,
including all Subscriber information to include name, tax identi?cation number (social
security number or employer identi?cation number), the physical address, mailing
addresses, residential addresses, business addresses, email addresses and any other
address information, the credit information obtained or used by the company to grant
account status, all phone numbers associated with account, billing records, all payments
to include method, date and time of payments, and location (store name, address, and
phone number of location where payment(s) were made), all Authorized users on the
associated account, activation date and termination date of each device associated with
the account and above listed device, types of service subsc?ber(s) utilized and services
subscribed to, the make, model, and serial number associated with the above listed device

including any and all equipment changes or device services for the life of the account, and
all customer service and account notes,

QEHH

which is evidence of the crime of Murder in the Second Degree, in violation of Ark. Code
Ann. 5-10-103, et. Seq,

and I am satis?ed that there is probable cause to believe that the data so described is
being concealed within the storage facilities above described and that the for foregoing
grounds for application for issuance of the search warrant exists. The Court fm'ther finds
that there is reasonable cause to believe:

the place to be searched is dif?cult of speedy access.

That the objects to be seized are in danger of imminent removal.

That the warrant can only be safely or successfully executed at nighttime or under
circumstances, the occurrence of which is dif?th to predict with accuracy.

That the of?cers are authorized to serve this warrant without complying with the
?knock and announce? provision.

 

Non-Disclosure- It is hereby ordered that the served party, Amazon.com and any other
involved parties, shall not supply information of this search warrant to anyone other than
those necessary to comply with this search warrant.

YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to search within a reasonable time, not to
exceed sixty (60) days, the storage facilities described above, for the property speci?ed,
sewing this warrant and making this search between the hours of 6:00 am. and 8:00 pm.
and if the property be found there to seize it, leaving a copy of this warrant and a receipt
for the property taken, and prepare a written inventory of the property seiZed and return
this warrant and bring the property within the time as required by law, not to exceed ?ve
(5) days after execution of the warrant.


Dated this? 2016.

 
   
 



 

ma?a?[?neq

REPORT #2015-39460

EXTENSION OF SEARCH WARRANT

 

AFFIDAVIT FOR SEARCH WARRANT
IN THE BENTON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
STATE OF ARKANSAS


ss
COUNTY OF BENTON 

BEFORE THE HONORABLE CIRCUIT JUDGE

The undersigned being duly sworn deposes and says: That he, Detective Corporal
Josh Woodhams, Bentonville Police Department, Criminal Investigations Division, has
reason to believe that Amazoncom is in possession of records related to a homicide
investigation being conducted by the Bentonville Police Department,

there is now being retained certain records, namely electronic data in the form of audio
recordings, transcribed records, or other text records related to communications and
transactions between an Amazon Echo device (FCC ID that was located at
James A. Bates? residence of 3502 SW Elm Manor Avenue in Bentonville, Arkansas. and
Amazon.com?s servers and other computer hardware maintained by Amazon.com in
another location, between the time period of November 21", 2015, at 0001 Hours Central
Standard Time and November 2015, at 2359 Hours Central Standard Time,

which are stored and maintained by Amazon.com, as well as the purchase and billing
history for the Amazon Echo device, the IP Address associated with Amazon Echo device
utilized by James A. Bates (White/Male, DOB: 06/05/1984) (Email Addresses:
iaber84@aol.com; iaber84@ggail.com;
iaber?Qahooxom; and any other possible email associated with the above
mentioned subject), the Subscriber information for James A. Bates with Amazon,
including all Subscriber information to include name, tax identi?cation number (social
security number or employer identi?cation number), the physical address, mailing
addresses, residential addresses, business addresses, email addresses and any other
address information, the credit informau'on obtained or used by the company to grant
account status, all phone numbers associated with account, billing records, all payments
to include method, date and time of payments, and location (store name, address, and
phone number of location where payment(s) were made), all Authorized users on the
associated account, activation date and termination date of each device associated with
the account and above listed device, types of service subscriber(s) utilized and services
subscribed to, the make, model, and serial number associated with the above listed device
including any and all equipment changes or device services for the life of the account, and
all customer service and account notes,

which is evidence of the crime of Murder in the Second Degree, in violation of Ark. Code
Ann. 5-10-103, et. Seq,

and that the facts tending to establish the foregoing grounds for issuance of a Search
Warrant are as follows;

The records of the Bentonville Police Department re?ect that on Sunday,
November 2015 at 0937 hours, Of?cers Andrew and Adam Corbett responded to
3502 SW Elm Manor Avenue, in reference to a death investigation. Dispatch advised
James Bates contacted the police department via 91] to report VW was found
deceased in the hot tub on the back patio at his residence.

Of?cer Andrew Corbett was ?rst to arrive on the scene and entered the residence
with Bentonville EMS. EMS advised at 0941 hours that Victor was deceased and they
would not be rendering medical aid.

Officer Adam Corbett arrived shortly after and entered the residence and made
contact with James Bates who was in the kitchen near the backdoor of the house. Adam
asked James to have a seat in the living room and explain the events of what had
occurred. James stated that he lives at the residence with his ?ve year old son, who had
not been at the residence this weekend as he was with his mother. James stated he had
several of his friends over to his residence the night before (Saturday, November 21?? 
watching the Arkansas Razorback football game.

James advised that he knew the friends from work. He stated Victor Collins was
the deceased male who was in the hot tub. Two other ?'iends Owen McDonald and SE

 

Henry were also over, and were no longer at the residence.

According to James, he and his friends had been drinking beer and taken several
shots of vodka. Following the conclusion of the football game Sean had left the residence.
James, Victor, and Owen decided to get in the hot tub located on the back patio.

James stated he and his friends continued to drink until approximately 0100 hours on
Sunday, November 22, 2015, when he decided to go to bed for the night. James stated
that Victor and Owen had decided to stay the night at his house because they were
arguing with their wives, and he informed them they could sleep on his living room couch

and a bed was available in his son?s bedroom.

Shortly before the time of call, James awoke and exited his bedroom. James did
not observe anyone on the living room couch, and walked into the kitchen. James began
cleaning up some empty beer bottles lying on the kitchen counter and moments later
opened the back door of the residence and observed a male laying face down and ?oating
in the hot tub.

James ran over to the hot tub, ?ipped him over; and attempted to pull him out of
the hot tub. James stated while he was pulling on Victor?s body he realized Victor was
deceased and called 911 for assistance. Owen was not located at the residence at the
time ofthe call to 911.

James was read the Bentonville Police Department Consent to Search form. He
stated he understood his rights, and consented to the search of his residence, vehicle, and
person. He was then escorted out of the residence and remained outside for the duration
of the investigation. Det. Oliver was noti?ed to reSpond to the scene.

Upon Oliver?s arrival, Adam briefed Det. Oliver of the aforementioned incident
and how Victor?s remains were discovered in the hot tub. Adam also advised him that the
home owner, James, had given consent to search the residence.

Detective Oliver proceeded to enter the residence to the back yard. In the back
yard on the patio was a Hot Springs Spa hot tub. Det. Oliver observed Victor's body lying
in the water in the spa face up. Det. Oliver observed blood and pink foam coming from
Victor?s nose. Victor?s left and lips appeared to be dark and swollen. The water inside
the spa had tLu'ned a dark reddish tint that appeared to be discolored because of blood,
feces and vomit.

There also appeared to be signs of struggle around the spa. Several knobs and
head rests ?'om inside the spa were lying on the ground near the spa. There were
suspected blood spots around the rim and side of the spa. I also observed the head rests
and knobs had suspected blood them as well. There was broken blue glass bottle and a
broken beer bottle next to the spa. Part of the blue bottle was busted against the privacy
fence across the yard on the north side. Det. Oliver then contacted Detective Boyle and
Captain Thompson to respond and process the scene. Det. Boyle photographed the scene

and swabbed some the suspected blood areas around the spa and seized it as evidence.

On Tuesday, November 2015, Det. Oliver contacted James Bates and Owen
McDonald and asked them if they would voluntarily come to the Bentonville Police
Department for further a further detailed interview. Upon their arrival, Sgt. Mof?tt and
Det. Oliver interviewed Owen McDonald while Cpt. Thompson and I interviewed James
Bates. Neither James nor Owen remembered what happened to cause the death of Victor
Collins. They stated that they were very intoxicated and recalled very little about the
night of his death. During this time, James consented to having pictures taken of his:
hands and some injuries sustained to them, but no further examination was done at that
time.

On November 25, 2015, Dr. Charles Kokes, Medical Examiner, advised me that
Victor Collins death was ruled a homicide. A?er speaking with Dr. Kokes, Bentonville
Detectives secured the residence mentioned above for a search warrant. I conducted the
search, along with Detective Lieutenant Tony Marveggio, Detective Sergeant David
Townsend, Detective Corporal Tracy Brown, Detective Corporal Josh Woodhams, and
Detective Oliver.

Upon searching the interior of the home, we located three separate areas of what
appeared to be dried blood. These areas were swabbed and collected as evidence to be
sent to the Arkansas State Crime Lab for analysis. While searching the hot tub in the
backyard of the residence, a set of broken glasses and a men?s ring were discovered at the
bottom, both of which were learned to have belonged to the victim in this case.
Additionally, a broken shot glass was found in the hot tub and there was suspected blood
spatter discovered on the covered awning located directly above the hot tub. These items,
along with the observations of officers during the initial investigation, the medical
examiner?s ?ndings, and the facts of this investigation thus far, suggest that a physical
altercation occurred that resulted in the death of Victor Collins.

It should be noted that during a follow-up interview with Owen, he consented to
an examination of his person for injuries and none were discovered. At the time of this
writing, James has ceased cooperation with law enforcement. At the time of the initial
search of his home when James reported Victor's death, James? truck was not thoroughly

searched or processed and it was believed that it contained evidence related to the case

under investigation. The truck was later seized pursuant to the issuance of a search
warrant and it is still in the process of being search at the time of this writing.

On December 2015, the Honorable Judge Brad Karren reviewed and approved
a search warrant for James Bates? residence once again, located at 3502 SW Elm Manor
Avenue, speci?cally for the search and seizure of electronic devices capable of storing
and transmitting any form of data that could be related to this investigation. Of?cers
executed this search warrant on this same date and during the course of the search, I
located an Amazon Echo device in the kitchen, lying on the kitchen counter next to the -
refrigerator, plugged into the wall outlet. I had previously observed this device in the
same position and state during the previous search warrant on November 25th, 2015. I
recognized this device from my previous training and personal experience as a product
that Amazon.com sold to consumers for a variety of different services.

In summary and according to Amazoncom?s website and other online sources, the
Amazon Echo is a wireless speaker and voice command device. The device is cylindrical
in shape and consists of a 9.25-inch (23.5 cm) tall cylinder speaker with a seven?piece
microphone array. The device responds to the name "Alexa," which is a "wake word" that
can be changed by the user to one other choice at the present, which is "Amazon." The
device is capable of voice interaction, music playback, making to-do lists, setting alarms,
streaming podcasts, playing audio books, providing weather, tra?ic and other real time
information. It is also capable of controlling a variety of smart-home features, to include
home security, lighting, and video surveillance, which are services offered by companies
that are supported by Amazon Echo, to include WeMo. Amazon.corn states that the Echo
is equipped with an array of seven microphones, equipped with sensors that use beam-
forming technology to hear users from any direction. With enhanced noise cancellation,
Echo can hear users ask a question even while the device is playing music or if there is
background noise. Echo then uses on-deviee keyword spotting to detect the wake word,
either ?Alexa? or ?Amazon,? and then lights up to stream what the user says to their
cloud service, where Amazon leverages the Alexa Voice Service to recognize and

respond to the user?s request.

While searching James? residence, we discovered numerous devices that were
used for ?smart home? services, to include a ?Nest? thermometer that is Wi-Fi connected
and remotely controlled, a Honeywell alarm system that included door monitoring alarms
and motion sensor in the living room, a wireless weather monitoring system outside on
the back patio, and WeMo devices in the garage area for remote-activated lighting
purposes that had not been opened yet. All of these devices, to include the Amazon Echo
device, can be controlled remotely using a cell phone, computer, or other device capable
of communicating through a network and are capable of interacting with one another
through the use of one or more applications or programs. Through investigation, it was
learned that during the time period of Victor?s time at the residence, music was being
wirelessly streamed throughout the home and onto the back patio of the residence, which
could have been activated and controlled utilizing the Amazon Echo device or an
application for the device installed on ames? cell Apple iPhone.

The Amazon Echo device is constantly listening for the ?wake? command of
?Alexa? or ?Amazon,? and records any command, inquiry, or verbal gesture given after
that point, or possibly at all times without the ?wake word? being issued, which is
uploaded to Amazon.com?s servers at a remote location. It is believed that these records
are retained by Amazon.com and that they are evidence related to the case under
investigation.

Search Warrant Extension

On December 2015, Amazon.com was served with a search warrant that was
reviewed and approved by Circuit Court Judge Brad Karren on the same date. The search
warrant was sent through Amazon?s law enforcement email service and was also sent
through United States Postal Service Certi?ed Mail to their corporate headquarters in
Tumwater, Washington. The search warrant was received by Amazon through the mail
on December 2015, and representatives with Amazon have been in contact with this
agency since receiving the search warrant. In speaking with their law enforcement
liaison, Greg Haney, I was informed on two separate occasions that Amazon was in
possession of the requested data in the search warrant but needed to consult with their

counsel prior to complying with the search warrant. As of January 2016, Amazon

has not provided our agency with the requested data and an extension for the originally
ordered search warrant is being sought.

The reliability of said Af?ant has been established by the following;

I, Detective Corporal Josh Woodhams, have been a Bentonville Police Of?cer for
the past (9) years and a total of (10) years in law enforcement. I have had extensive
training in criminal investigation, speci?cally related to personal crimes and evidence
collection, as well as technology-based mining and evidence handling processes related
to this discipline.

Non-Disclosure- It is hereby ordered that the served party, Amazon.com and any other
involved parties, shall not supply infonnation of this search warrant to anyone other than
those necessary to comply with this search warrant.

 

It is further believed that the above-described items are in danger of being
removed from said storage facilities or destroyed. It is, therefore, prayed by the af?ant(s)
herein that a Warrant to Search the tely stored data, issue for the herein above-
described items.

3 
tive Corporal Josh Woodhams
entonville Police Department

Sworn to before me and subscribed in my presence, atQ.

A ,this 
{layof 2016.

    
   

 

'HoNo BL 911cm JUDGE
?1 

REPORT #2015-39460

EXHIBIT A-2

 a :1
SEARCH WARRANT THE BENTON COUNTY CIRCUIT 1.1 0 0? :4
a 9

STATE OF ARKANSAS *3 3 3

)ss 3 290?? ?9

COUNTY OF BENTON 3% ?23
as

TO ANY SHERIFF, CONSTABLE OR POLICE OFFICER IN THE STATE OF
ARKANSAS:

Affidavit having been made before me by Detective Corporal Josh Woodhatns,
Bentonville Police Department, Criminal Investigations Division, has reason to believe
that Amazoncom is in possession of records related to a homicide investigation being
conducted by the Bentonville Police Department,

there is now being retained certain records, namely electronic data in the form of audio
recordings, transcribed records, or other text records related to communications and
transactions between an Amazon Echo device (FCC ID ZWJ-0823) that was located at
James A. Bates? residence of 3502 SW Elm Manor Avenue in Bentonville, Arkansas, and
Amazoncom?s servers and other computer hardware maintained by Amazon.com in
another location, between the time period of November 2015, at 0001 Hours Central
Standard Time and November 2015, at 2359 Hours Cenn'al Standard Time,

which are stored and maintained by Amazon.com, as well as the purchase and billing
history for the Amazon Echo device, the IP Address associated with Amazon Echo device
utilized by James A. Bates (White/Male, DOB: 06/05/1984) (Email Addresses:
iaber84@aol.com; iaber84@ggail.com;
iaber84@ahoo.com; and any other possible email associated with the above
mentioned subject), the Subscriber information for James A. Bates with Amazon,
including all Subscriber information to include name, tax identi?cation number (social
security number or employer identi?cation number), the physical address, mailing
addresses, residential addresses, business addresses, e-mail addresses and any other
address information, the credit information obtained or used by the company to grant
account status, all phone numbers associated with account, billing records, all payments
to include method, date and time of payments. and location (store name, address, and
phone number of location where payment(s) were made), all Authorized users on the
associatedaccount, activation date and termination date of each device associated with
the account and above listed device, types of service subscriber(s) utilized and services
subscribed to, the make, model, and serial number associated with the above listed device
including any and all equipment changes or device services for the life of the account, and
all customer service and account notes,

which is evidence of the crime of Murder in the Second Degree, in violation of Ark. Code
Ann. 5-10-103, et. Seq,

and I am satis?ed that there is probable cause to believe that the data so described is
being concealed within the storage facilities above described and that the for foregoing
grounds for application for issuance of the search warrant exists. The Court further ?nds
that there is reasonable cause to believe:

)mplace to be searched is dif?cult of speedy access.

That the objects to be seized are in danger of imminent removal.
That the warrant can only be safely or successfully executed at nighttime or under
circumstances, the occurrence of which is di?icult to predict with accuracy.

That the o?icers are authorized to serve this warrant without complying with the
?knock and announce? provision.

Non-Disclosure- It is hereby ordered that the served party, Amazoncorg, and any other
involved parties, shall not supply information of this search warrant to anyone other than
those necessary to comply with this search warrant.

YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to search within a reasonable time, not to
exceed sixty (60) days, the storage facilities described above, for the property speci?ed,
serving this warrant and making this search between the hours of 6:00 am. and 8:00 p.111.
and if the property be found there to seize it, leaving a copy of this warrant and a receipt
for the property taken, and prepare a written inventory of the property seized and return
this warrant and bring the property within the time as required by law, not to exceed ?ve
(5) days after execution of the warrant.

Dated this daof ??ff 2015.

HONORABLE CIRCUIT JUDGE

 

REPORT #2015- 39460

AFFIDAVIT FOR SEARCH WARRANT 

U: 
?31 2%
IN THE BENTON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT 23, an ?3
El 73:; ?30 
STATE OF ARKANSAS e; '15, :31 
)ss i; 2,39, 3% 6
COUNTY OF BENTON :i?g a, a,
r? ?5 ?3 
BEFORE THE HONORABLE CIRCUIT JUDGE I 3M Acumen r; 

The undersigned being duly sworn deposes and says: That he, Detective Corporal
Josh Woodhams, Bentonville Police Department, Criminal Investigations Division, has
reason to believe that Amazon.com is in possession of records related to a homicide
investigation being conducted by the Bentonville Police Department,

there is now being retained certain records, namely electronic data in the form of audio
recordings, transcribed records, or other text records related to communications and
transactions between an Amazon Echo device (FCC ID 823) that was located at
James A. Bates? residence of 3502 SW Elm Manor Avenue in Bentonville, Arkansas, and
Amazoncom?s servers and other computer hardware maintained by Amazonccm in
another location, between the time period of November 21?, 2015, at 0001 Hours Central
Standard Time and November 2015, at 2359 Hours Central Standard Time,

which are stored and maintained by Amazon.com, as well as the purchase and billing
history for the Amazon Echo device, the IP Address associated with Amazon Echo device
utilized by James A. Bates (White/Male, DOB: 0610511984) (Email Addresses:
iamesbatee84@gmail.com; iaber84@gol.com; iaber84@gail.com;
jaber84@yahoo.com; and any other possible email associated with the above
mentioned subject), the Subscriber information for James A. Bates with Amazon,
including all Subscriber information to include name, tax identi?cation number (social
security number or employer identi?cation number), the physical address, mailing
addresses, residential addresses, business addresses, e-mail addresses and any other
address information, the credit information obtained or used by the company to grant
account status, all phone numbers associated with account, billing records. all payments
to include method, date and time of payments, and location (store name, address, and
phone number of location where payment(s) were made), all Authorized users on the
associated account, activation date and termination date of each device associated with
the account and above listed device, types of service subscriber(s) utilized and services
subscribed to, the make, model, and serial number associated with the above listed device
including any and all equipment changes or device services for the life of the account, and
all customer service and account notes,

which is evidence of the crime of Murder in the Second Degree, in violation of Ark. Code
Ann. 5-10-103, et. Seq,

and that the facts tending to establish the foregoing grounds for issuance of a Search
Warrant are as follows;

The records of the Bentonville Police Department re?ect that on Sunday,
November 2015 at 0937 hours. Of?cers Andrew and Adam Corbett responded to
3502 SW Elm Manor Avenue, in reference to a death investigation. Dispatch advised
James Bates contacted the police department via 911 to report Victor Collins was found
deceased in the hot tub on the back patio at his residence.

O?icer Andrew Corbett was ?rst to arrive on the scene and entered the residence
with Bentonville EMS. EMS advised at 0941 hours that Victor was deceased and they
would not be rendering medical aid.

Of?cer Adam Corbett arrived shortly after and entered the residence and made
contact with James Bates who was in the kitchen near the backdoor of the house. Adam
asked James to have a seat in the living room and explain the events of what had
occurred. James stated that he lives at the residence with his ?ve year old son, who had
not been at the residence this weekend as he was with his mother. James stated he had
several of his friends over to his residence the night before (Saturday, November 215'),
watching the Arkansas Razorback football game.

James advised that he knew the ?'iends from work. He stated Victor Collins was
the deceased male who was in the hot tub. Two other friends Owen McDonald and Sean
Henry were also over, and were no longer at the residence.

According to James, he and his friends had been drinking beer and taken several
shots of vodka. Following the conclusion of the football game Sean had le? the residence.
James, Victor. and Owen decided to get in the hot tub located on the back patio.

James stated he and his ?iends continued to drink until approximately 0100 hours on
Sunday, November 22, 2015, when he decided to go to bed for the night. James stated
that Victor and Owen had decided to stay the night at his house because they were
arguing with their wives, and he informed them they could sleep on his living room couch
and a bed was available in his son?s bedroom.

Shortly before the time of call, James awoke and exited his bedroom. James did

not observe anyone on the living room couch, and walked into the kitchen. James began

cleaning up some empty beer bottles lying on the kitchen counter and moments later
opened the back door of the residence and observed a male laying face down and ?oating
in the hot tub.

James ran over to the hot tub, ?ipped him over, and attempted to pull him out of
the hot tub. James stated while he was pulling on Victor?s body he realized Victor was
deceased and called 911 for assistance. Owen was not located at the residence at the
time ofthe call to 911.

James was read the Bentonville Police Department Consent to Search form. He
stated he understood his rights, and consented to the search of his residence, vehicle, and
person. He was then escorted out of the residence and remained outside for the duration
of the investigation. Det. Oliver was noti?ed to respond to the scene.

Upon Oliver?s an'ival, Adam briefed Det. Oliver of the aforementioned incident
and how Victor?s remains were discovered in the hot tub. Adam also advised him that the
home owner, James, had given consent to search the residence.

Detective Oliver proceeded to enter the residence to the back yard. In the back
yard on the patio was a Hot Springs Spa hot tub. Det. Oliver observed Victor?s body lying
in the water in the spa face up. Det. Oliver observed blood and pink foam coming from
Victor's nose. Victor?s le? and lips appeared to be dark and swollen. The water inside
the spa had turned a dark reddish tint that appeared to be discolored because of blood,
feces and vomit.

There also appeared to be signs of struggle aIOImd the spa. Several knobs and
head rests ?'om inside the spa were lying on the ground near the spa. There were
suspected blood spots around the rim and side of the spa. I also observed the head rests
and knobs had suspected blood them as well. There was broken blue glass bottle and a
broken beer bottle next to the spa. Part of the blue bottle was busted against the privacy
fence across the yard on the north side. Det. Oliver then contacted Detective Boyle and
Captain Thompson to respond and process the scene. Det. Boyle photographed the scene
and swabbed some the suspected blood areas around the spa and seized it as evidence.

On Tuesday, November 24?, 2015, Det. Oliver contacted James Bates and Owen
McDonald and asked them if they would voluntarily come to the Bentonville Police

Department for further a further detailed interview. Upon their arrival, Sgt. Mo?itt and
Det. Oliver interviewed Owen McDonald while Cpt. Thompson and I interviewed James
Bates. Neither James nor Owen remembered what happened to cause the death of Victor
Collins. They stated that they were very intoxicated and recalled very little about the
night of his death. During this time, James consented to having pictures taken of his
hands and some injuries sustained to them, but no further examination was done at that
time.

On November 25, 2015, Dr. Charles Kokes, Medical Examiner, advised me that
Victor Collins death was ruled a homicide. After speaking with Dr. Kokes, Bentonville
Detectives secured the residence mentioned above for a search warrant. I conducted the
search, along with Detective Lieutenant Tony Marveggio, Detective Sergeant David
Townsend, Detective Corporal Tracy Brown, Detective Corporal Josh Woodhams, and
Detective Oliver.

Upon searching the interior of the home, we located three separate areas of what
appeared to be dried blood. These areas were swabbed and collected as evidence to be
sent to the Arkansas State Crime Lab for analysis. While searching the hot tub in the
backyard of the residence, a set of broken glasses and a men?s ring were discovered at the
bottom, both of which were learned to have belonged to the victim in this case.
Additionally, a broken shot glass was found in the hot tub and there was suspected blood
spatter discovered on the covered awning located directly above the hot tub. These items,
along with the observations of of?cers during the initial investigation, the medical
examiner?s ?ndings, and the facts of this investigation thus far, suggest that a physical
altercation occurred that resulted in the death of Victor Collins.

It should be noted that during a follow-up interview with Owen, he consented to
an examination of his person for injuries and none were discovered. At the time of this
writing, James has ceased cooperation with law enforcement. At the time of the initial
search of his home when James reported Victor?s death, James' truck was not thoroughly
searched or processed and it was believed that it contained evidence related to the case
under investigation. The truck was later seized pursuant to the issuance of a search

warrant and it is still in the process of being search at the time of this writing.

On December 3rd, 2015, the Honorable Judge Brad Karren reviewed and approved
a search warrant for James Bates? residence once again, located at 3502 SW Elm Manor
Avenue, speci?cally for the search and seizure of electronic devices capable of storing
and transmitting any form of data that could be related to this investigation. Of?cers
executed this search warrant on this same date and during the course of the search, I
located an Amazon Echo device in the kitchen, lying on the kitchen counter next to the
refrigerator, plugged into the wall outlet. I had previously observed this device in the
same position and state during the previous search warrant on November 2015. I
recognized this device from my previous training and personal experience as a product
that Amazon.com sold to consumers for a variety of different services.

In summary and according to Amazon.com?s website and other online sources, the
Amazon Echo is a wireless speaker and voice command device. The device is cylindrical
in shape and consists of a 9.25-inch (23.5 cm) tall cylinder speaker with a seven-piece
microphone array. The device responds to the name "Alexa," which is a "wake word" that
can be changed by the user to one other choice at the present, which is "Amazon." The
device is capable of voice interaction, music playback, making to-do lists, setting alarms,
streaming pcdcasts, playing audio books, providing weather, traf?c and other real time
information. It is also capable of controlling a variety of smart-home features, to include
home security, lighting, and video surveillance, which are services offered by companies
that are supported by Amazon Echo, to include WeMo. Amazon.com states that the Echo
is equipped with an array of seven microphones, equipped with sensors that use beam-
forming technology to hear users from any direction. With enhanced noise cancellation,
Echo can hear users ask a question even while the device is playing music or if there is
background noise. Echo then uses on-device keyword spotting to detect the wake word,
either ?Alexa? or ?Amazon,? and then lights up to stream what the user says to their
cloud service, where Amazon leverages the Alexa Voice Service to recognize and
respond to the user?s request.

While searching James? residence, we discovered numerous devices that were
used for ?smart home? services, to include a ?Nest? thermometer that is Wi-Fi connected

and remotely controlled, a Honeywell alarm system that included door monitoring alarms

and motion sensor in the living room, a wireless weather monitoring system outside on
the back patio, and WeMo devices in the garage area for remote-activated lighting
purposes that had not been opened yet. All of these devices, to include the Amazon Echo
device, can be controlled remotely using a cell phone, computer, or other device capable
of communicating through a network and are capable of interacting with one another
through the use of one or more applications or programs. Through investigation, it was
learned that during the time period of Victor?s time at the residence, music was being
wirelessly streamed throughout the home and onto the back patio of the residence, which
could have been activated and controlled utilizing the Amazon Echo device or an
application for the device installed on James? cell Apple iPhone.

The Amazon Echo device is constantly listening for the ?wake? command of
?Alexa? or ?Amazon,? and records any command, inquiry, or verbal gesture given after
that point, or possibly at all times without the ?wake word? being issued, which is
uploaded to Amazon.com?s servers at a remote location. It is believed that these records
are retained by Amazon.com and that they are evidence related'to the case under

investigation.

The reliability of said A??iant has been established by the following;

I, Detective Corporal Josh Woodharns, have been a Bentonville Police Of?cer for
the past (9) years and a total of (l 0) years in law enforcement. I have had extensive
training in criminal investigation, speci?cally related to personal crimes and evidence
collection, as well as technology-based training and evidence handling processes related
to this discipline.

Non-Disclosure- It is hereby ordered that the served party, Amazon.com and any other
involved parties, shall not supply information of this search warrant to anyone other than
those necessary to comply with this search warrant.

 

It is ?n'ther believed that the above-described items are in danger of being
removed ?'om said storage facilities or destroyed. It is, therefore, prayed by the af?ant(s)
herein that a Warrant to Search the remote stored data, issue for the herein above-
described items.



we Corporal Josh Woodhams
Bentonville Police Department

 

Sworn to before me and subscribed in my presence?tt
9 20M this 
2015.

    

H0 ORABL IRCUIT JUDGE @241

REPORT #2015-39460

EXHIBIT 

Uzdw '570- a

c, e:
SEARCH WARRANT RETURN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF BENTON COUNTY, ARKANSQ 7; 
I received the attached Search Warrant on the day of June, 2016, audited?? 3 i2;
executed it as fe?ovvs: z: re 29 .
On the 28th day of June, efforts

A
A
began on executing the search wamant on
devices described in the search warrant. Detective Mike Stegall was able


mg? 
to extract ?i?g
data from the Amazon Echo device and the LG cell phone, but not from the Huewei cell
phone due to the device being at the chipset level.

The following is an inventory of the property taken pursuant to the warrant:

Data contained on the Amazon Echo device and LG cell phone

I swear that this inventory is a true and detailed account Of
by me on the Search Warrant.

property taken

7! 3
g?et. Corporal Josh Woodhams


ntonville Police Department

Subscribed and sworn to and returned before me this 6 day of A 2016

K,

JUDGE

ongw Ho 


6,922, 
SEARCHWARRANT -n
32:29,; on 
INTHEBENTON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT r?
832?: :3
STATEOFARKANSAS 231%? 
)ss 133 HI
COUNTY OF BENTON g) ?53.

TO ANY SHERIFF, CONSTABLE OR POLICE OFFICER IN THE STATE OF
ARKANSAS:

Af?davit having been made before me by Detective Corporal Josh Woodhams,
Bentonville Police Department, Criminal Investigations Division, has reason to believe

that on devices seized as evidence related to a homicide investigation being conducted by
the Bentonville Police Department,

there is now being concealed certain data, namely electronic data in the form of audio
recordings, transcribed records, text records, and other data contained on an Amazon
Echo device (FCC ID ZWJ-0823, ASIN BO0L9EOQCO, MAC Wireless 9,
MAC Bluetooth 00BB3ACC0666, DSN BOF00712524201KQ), and certain data such as
text messages, emails, photographs, video, call logs, and other cell phone data contained
on a LG cell phone (Model LG-E980, IMEI 013520004007136, SN 403KPTM400713)
belonging to the victim in this investigation, Victor Collins, and certain data such as text
messages, emails, photographs, video, call logs, and other cell phone data contained on a

Huawei Nexus cell phone (Model H1511, IMEI 867979021136608) belonging to the
suspect in this investigation, James Bates,

which is evidence of the crime of Murder in the First Degree, in violation of Ark. Code
Ann. 5-10?102, et. Seq,

and I am satis?ed that there is probable cause to believe that the data so described is
being conceal 'thin the devices above described and that the foregoing grounds for

application issuance of the search warrant exists. The Court further ?nds that there is
reasona cause to believe:

   
 
 

That the objects to be seized are in danger of imminent removal.

YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to search within a reasonable time, not to
exceed sixty (60) days, the devices described above, for the property Speci?ed, serving
this warrant and making this search between the hours of 6:00 am. and 8:00 pm. and if
the property be found there to seize it, leaving a copy of this warrant and a receipt for the
property taken, and prepare a written inventory of the property seized and return this

      
   

warrant and bring the property within the time as
days after execution of the warrant

Dated this 28

HONORABLE CIRCUIT 
REPORT #2015-39460 

ed by law, not to exceed ?ve (5)

2016.

 

AFFIDAVIT FOR SEARCH WARRANT




'35
(on

2%

INTHEBENTON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT a :3 G)

r0


7 i:
STATE OF ARKANSAS a g, rn
)58 a g; 
COUNTYOFBENTON 
BEFORE THE HONORABLE CIRCUIT JUDGE a 3? 

The undersigned being duly sworn deposes and says: That he, Detective Corporal
Josh Woodhams, Bentonville Police Department, Criminal Investigations Division, has

reason to believe that on devices seized as evidence related to a homicide investigation
being conducted by the Bentonville Police Department,

there is now being concealed certain data, namely electronic data in the form of audio
recordings, transcribed records, text records, and other data contained on an Amazon
Echo device (FCC ID ZWJ-0823, ASIN BOOL9EOQCO, MAC Wireless 74C2463EBE39,
MAC Bluetooth OOBBSAC00666, DSN BOF00712524201KQ), and certain data such as
text messages, emails, photographs, video, call logs, and other cell phone data contained
on a LG cell phone (Model LG-E980, IMEI 013520004007136, SN 403KPTM400713)
belonging to the victim in this investigation, Victor Collins, and certain data such as text
messages, emails, photographs, video, call logs, and other cell phone data contained on a

Huawei Nexus cell phone (Model H1511, IMEI 867979021136608) belonging to the
suspect in this investigation, James Bates,

which is evidence of the crime of Murder in the First Degree, in violation of Ark. Code
Ann. 5-10-102, et. Seq,

and that the facts tending to establish the foregoing grounds for issuance of a Search
Warrant are as follows;

The records of the Bentonville Police Department re?ect that on Sunday,
November 2015 at 0937 hours, Of?cers Andrew and Adam Corbett responded to
3502 SW Elm Manor Avenue, in reference to a death investigation. Dispatch advised
James Bates contacted the police department via 911 to report Victor Collins was found
deceased in the hot tub on the back patio at his residence.

Officer Andrew Corbett was ?rst to arrive on the scene and entered the residence

with Bentonville EMS. EMS advised at 0941 hours that Victor was deceased and they
would not be rendering medical aid.

Of?cer Adam Corbett arrived shortly after and entered the residence and made
contact with James Bates who was in the kitchen near the backdoor of the house. Adam
asked James to have a seat in the living room and explain the events of what had
occurred. James stated that he lives at the residence with his ?ve year old son, who had
not been at the residence this weekend as he was with his mother. James stated he had
several of his friends over to his residence the night before (Saturday, November 
watching the Arkansas Razorback football game.

James advised that he knew the friends ?'om work. He stated Victor Collins was
the deceased male who was in the hot tub. Two other friends Owen McDonald and Sean
Henry were also over, and were no longer at the residence.

According to James, he and his friends had been drinking beer and taken several
shots of vodka. Following the conclusion of the football game Sean had left the residence.
James, Victor, and Owen decided to get in the hot tub located on the back patio.

James stated he and his friends continued to drink until approximately 0100 hours on
Sunday, November 22, 2015. when he decided to go to bed for the night. James stated
that Victor and Owen had decided to stay the night at his house because they were
arguing with their wives, and he informed them they could sleep on his living room couch
and a bed was available in his son?s bedroom.

Shortly before the time of call, James awoke and exited his bedroom. James did
not observe anyone on the living room couch, and walked into the kitchen. James began
cleaning up some empty beer bottles lying on the kitchen counter and moments later
Opened the back door of the residence and observed a male laying face down and ?oating
in the hot tub.

James ran over to the hot tub, ?ipped him over, and attempted to pull him out of
the hot tub. James stated while he was pulling on Victor?s body he realized Victor was
deceased and called 911 for assistance. Owen was not located at the residence at the
time ofthe call to 911.

James was read the Bentonville Police Department Consent to Search form. He

stated he understood his rights, and consented to the search of his residence, vehicle, and

person. He was then escorted out of the residence and remained outside for the duration
of the investigation. Det. Oliver was noti?ed to respond to the scene.

Upon Oliver?s arrival, Adam briefed Det. Oliver of the aforementioned incident
and how Victor?s remains were discovered in the hot tub. Adam also advised him that the
home owner, James, had given consent to search the residence.

Detective Oliver proceeded to enter the residence to the back yard. In the back
yard on the patio was a Hot Springs Spa hot tub. Det. Oliver observed Victor?s body lying
in the water in the spa face up. Det. Oliver observed blood and pink foam coming from
Victor?s nose. Victor?s left and lips appeared to be dark and swollen. The water inside
the spa had turned a' dark reddish tint that appeared to be discolored because of blood,
feces and vomit. 

There also appeared to be signs of struggle around the spa. Several knobs and
head rests ?om inside the spa were lying on the ground near the spa. There were
suspected blood spots around the rim and side of the 'spa. I also observed the head rests
and knobs had suspected blood them as well. There was broken blue glass bottle and a
broken beer bottle next to the spa. Part of the blue bottle was busted against the privacy
fence across the yard on the north side. Det. Oliver then contacted Detective Boyle and
Captain Thompson to respond and process the scene. Det. Boyle photographed the scene
and swabbed some the suspected blood areas around the spa and seized it as evidence.

On Tuesday, November 2015, Det. Oliver contacted James Bates and Owen
McDonald and asked them if they would voluntarily come to the Bentonville Police
Department for further a further detailed interview. Upon their arrival, Sgt. Moftitt and
Det. Oliver interviewed Owen McDonald while Cpt. Thompson and I interviewed James
Bates. Neither James nor Owen remembered what happened to cause the death of Victor
Collins. They stated that they were very intoxicated and recalled very little about the
night of his death. During this time, James consented to having pictures taken of his
hands and some injuries sustained to them, but no further examination was done at that
time.

On November 25, 2015, Dr. Charles Kokes, Medical Examiner, advised me that
Victor Collins death was ruled a homicide. After speaking with Dr. Kokes, Bentonville

Detectives secured the residence mentioned above for a search warrant. I conducted the
search, along with Detective Lieutenant Tony Marveggio, Detective Sergeant David
Townsend, Detective Corporal Tracy Brown, Detective Corporal Josh Woodhams, and
Detective Oliver.

Upon searching the interior of the home, we located three separate areas of what
appeared to be dried blood. These areas were swabbed and collected as evidence to be
sent to the Arkansas State Crime Lab for analysis. While searching the hot tub in the
backyard of the residence, a set of broken glasses and a men?s ring were discovered at the
bottom, both of which were learned to have belonged to the victim in this case.
Additionally, a broken shot glass was found in the hot tub and there was suspected blood
spatter discovered on the covered awning located directly above the hot tub. These items,
along with the observations of of?cers during the initial investigation, the medical
examiner?s ?ndings, and the facts of this investigation thus far, suggest that a physical
altercation occurred that resulted in the death of Victor Collins.

It should be noted that during a follow-up interview with Owen, he consented to
an examination of his person for injuries and none were discovered. At the time of this
writing, James has ceased cooperation with law enforcement. At the time of the initial
search of his home when James reported Victor?s death, James? truck was not thoroughly
searched or processed and it was believed that it contained evidence related to the case
under investigation. The truck was later seized pursuant to the issuance of a search
warrant and it is still in the process of being search at the time of this writing.

On December 3rd, 2015, the Honorable Judge Brad Karren reviewed and approved
a search warrant for James Bates? residence once again, located at 3502 SW Elm Manor
Avenue, speci?cally for the search and seizure of electronic devices capable of storing
and transmitting any form of data that could be related to this investigation. Of?cers
executed this search warrant on this same date and dming the course of the search, I
located an Amazon Echo device in the kitchen, lying on the kitchen counter next to the
refrigerator, plugged into the wall outlet. I had previously observed this device in the

same position and state during the previous search warrant on November 2015. I

recognized this device ?om my previous training and personal experience as a product
that Amazon.com sold to consumers for a variety of different services.

In summary and according to Amazoncom?s website and other online sources, the
Amazon Echo is a wireless speaker and voice command device. The device is cylindrical
in shape and consists of a 9.25-inch (23.5 cm) tall cylinder speaker with a seven-piece
microphone array. The device responds to the name "Alexa," which is a "wake word" that
can be changed by the user to one other choice at the present, which is "Amazon." The
device is capable of voice interaction, music playback, making to-do lists, setting alarms,
streaming podcasts, playing audio books, providing weather, traf?c and other real time
information. It is also capable of controlling a variety of smart-home features, to include
home security, lighting, and video surveillance, which are services offered by companies
that are supported by Amazon Echo, to include WeMo. Amazoncom states that the Echo
is equipped with an array of seven microphones, equipped with sensors that use beam-
forming technology to hear users ?'om any direction. With enhanced noise cancellation,
Echo can hear users ask a question even while the device is playing music or if there is
background noise. Echo then uses on-device keyword spotting to detect the wake word,
either ?Alexa? or ?Amazon,? and then lights up to stream what the user says to their
cloud service, where Amazon leverages the Alexa Voice Service to recognize and
respond to the user?s request.

While searching James? residence, we discovered numerous devices that were
used for ?smart home? services, to include a ?Nest? thermometer that is Wi-Fi connected
and remotely controlled, at Honeywell alarm system that included door monitoring alarms
and motion sensor in the living room, a wireless weather monitoring system outside on
the back patio, and WeMo devices in the garage area for remote-activated lighting
purposes that had not been opened yet. All of these devices, to include the Amazon Echo
device, can be controlled remotely using a cell phone, computer, or other device capable
of communicating through a network and are capable of interacting with one another
through the use of one or more applications or programs. Through investigation, it was
learned that during the time period of Victor?s time at the residence, music was being

wirelessly streamed throughout the home and onto the back patio of the residence, which

could have been activated and controlled utilizing the Amazon Echo device or an
application for the device installed on James? cell Apple iPhone.

The Amazon Echo device is constantly listening for the ?wake? command of
?Alexa? or ?Amazon,? and records any command, inquiry, or verbal gesture given after
that point, or possibly at all times without the ?wake word? being issued, which is
uploaded to Amazon.com?s servers at a remote location. It is believed that these records
are retained by Amazon.com and that they are evidence related to the case under
investigation.

On December 4th, 2015, Amazon.com was served with a search warrant that was
reviewed and approved by Circuit Court Judge Brad Karren on the same date. The search
warrant was sent through Amazon?s law enforcement email service and was also sent
through United States Postal Service Certi?ed Mail to their corporate headquarters in
Tumwater, Washington. The search warrant was received by Amazon through the mail
on December 1 2015, and representatives with Amazon have been in contact with this
agency since receiving the search warrant. In speaking with their law enforcement
liaison, Greg Haney, I was informed on two separate occasions that Amazon was in
possession of the requested data in the search warrant but needed to consult with their
counsel prior to complying with the search warrant As of January 2016, Amazon
has not provided our agency with the requested data and an extension for the originally
ordered search warrant was sought.

A?er being served with the second search warrant, Amazon did not comply with
providing all of the requested information listed in the search warrant, speci?cally any
information that the Echo device could have transmitted to their servers. This agency
maintains custody of the Echo device and it has since been learned that the device
contains hardware capable of storing data, to potentially include time stamps, audio ?les,
or other data. It is believed that the device may contain evidence related to this
investigation and a search of the device itself will yield additional data pertinent to this
case.

Our agency has also maintained custody of Victor Collins? cell phone, an LG
Model LG-E980, and James Bates? cell phone, a Huawei Nexus cell phone, that was

seized ?om Bates as a result of his arrest on February 2016, and we have been
unable to access the data stored on the devices due to a passcode lock on them. Despite
e?'orts to obtain the passcode, the devices could not be accessed. Our agency now has the
ability to utilize data extraction methods that negate the need for passcodes and efforts to

search Victor and Bates? devices will continue upon issuance of this warrant.

The reliability of said Af?ant has been established by the following;

I, Detective Corporal Josh Woodhams, have been a Bentonville Police Of?cer for
the past (10) years and a total of (1 1) years in law enforcement. I have had extensive
training in criminal investigation, speci?cally related to personal crimes and evidence
collection, as well as technology-based training and evidence handling processes related
to this discipline.

It is further believed that evidence related to this case is in danger of being
removed from said devices. It is, therefore, prayed by the a?iant(s) herein that a Warrant
to Search the devices, issue for the herei abovefdescribed items.

El?
ve Corporal Josh Woodhams
entonville Police Department

 
  

Det

Swo to :befo?_?m\ me and subscribed 1n my presence, atc:
4 ,thls
201 6.

 

 

3954K

REPORT #20 1 5-3 9460

EXHIBIT 

1/4/2017 Amazon Echo and the Hot Tub Murder The Information

9 The Information Projects About Our Subscribers Welcome, Stacey 

EXCLUSIVE

Amazon Echo and the Hot Tub Murder
By Tom Dotan and Reed Albergotti Dec. 27, 2016 7:01 AM PST

careful what you say around your Amazon Echo. Your words may be recorded and used against you in court.

In what may be the ?rst case of its kind, police investigating a murder in Bentonville, Arkansas, issued a warrant to Amazon.com to turn
over audio and other records from an Echo. The device in question belongs to James Andrew Bates, who was charged earlier this year with ?rst-

degree murder. The Victim, Victor Collins, was found dead in Mr. Bates? hot tub one Sunday morning in November of last year.

THE TAKEAWAY

Internet of Things devices that are always listening are emerging as a new tool for police, raising the prospect of more battles between
tech companies and law enforcement. In this case, Arkansas detectives got a search warrant for an Amazon Echo in the house where a

man was murdered late last year.

According to court records, Amazon twice declined to hand over information the Echo transmitted to its servers. The company did hand over Mr.
Bates? account information and purchase history. Police also said they took the device and extracted data off it, the records show. Amazon did

not respond to questions about the case or how it responded to the search warrant.

Mr. Bates pleaded not guilty in April and is out on bail. The case is due to go to trial in early 2017, according to Mr. Bates? defense attorney.

Police referred questions to the prosecutor's of?ce, which didn?t respond to a request for comment.

This murder investigation in a 40,000-person town in Arkansas, miles away from Silicon Valley or Seattle, offers a glimpse at the kinds of
investigations that will increasingly become commonplace, lawyers specializing in electronic privacy say. In one sense, the episode has echoes
of Apple?s showdown with the FBI over unlocking an iPhone belonging to the alleged San Bernardino shooter. But the ?always on? Internet of

Things devices?which record and remotely store snippets of audio?present a new wrinkle as fodder for criminal investigations.

It?s a relevant issue for a growing number of people. The Echo was a widely popular holiday gift this year; Amazon sold out of the full-sized
model and on Christmas Day the companion app shot to the top ?ve most downloaded free apps on the iTunes store, above Facebook and

Instagram.

In this case, Mr. Bates had several devices in his home, according to police records ?led with the court. These included a Nest Thermostat, a

Honeywell Alarm System, a wireless weather monitoring system and an unopened remote-activated lighting device?as well as the Echo.

In the spotlight are events that occurred overnight on Saturday, Nov. 21, 2015. Mr. Bates told detectives Mr. Collins and two others came over to
his house to watch the Arkansas Razorbacks football game at his place, according to court records. Everyone in the group worked at Walmart,

which is headquartered in Bentonville. Mr. Bates worked in loss prevention for the retailer.

The group drank beers and ?several shots of vodka.? Accounts vary of what happened after that. Police established through witness statements

and other inquiries that the two other men had left late in the evening.
Blood and Broken Glass

The next morning, Mr. Bates told police he found Mr. Collins dead in a hot tub on the back patio. A police report says there was a broken shot

glass, vodka bottle and blood spatter near the tub; the water had turned a dark reddish tint and Mr. Collins? left and lips appeared dark and

nform ati on.com lam azon- echo-and-the- hot-tub- urder 1/5

1/4/2017 Amazon Echo and the Hot Tub Murder The Information

swollen. The county medical examiner later ruled that he?d been strangled to death.

Detectives noticed Mr. Bates? Echo in his kitchen while searching the home. They learned the music was being streamed wirelessly during the

night, which they said could have been ?activated and controlled? using the Echo, detectives said in an af?davit for the Amazon search warrant.

EXCLUSIVE Amazon Echo and the Hot Tub Murder

errant recordings, like ambient sound or partial conversations, are sent to Amazon?s servers just like any other.

One big question is how much data could potentially be available from the device. An Echo is equipped with seven microphones that are always
listening for a person to utter a ?wake word? like ?Alexa? before perking up. At that point, it records a person?s commands?but only
records while the device?s blue light is on, according to a person close to Amazon. That data is sent to Amazon?s cloud servers where it can carry

out tasks like telling someone the weather, playing music or setting an alarm.

That would limit how much data could be captured. But as most owners probably have experienced, the microphones can often be triggered
inadvertently. And those errant recordings, like ambient sound or partial conversations, are sent to Amazon?s servers just like any other. A look
through the user history in an Alexa app often reveals a trove of conversation snippets that the device picked up and is stored remotely; people

have to delete those audio clips manually.

"The interesting thing in a murder trial would be if there was this 'false ?re' [accidental recording] and audio snippets were recorded in the
process," said Todd Mozer, CEO of Sensory, which builds so-called "embedded speech recognition" in products made by companies like

Samsung, Amazon and Motorola.

Mr. Bates? defense attorney, Kimberly Weber, said in an interview it was alarming that police are now issuing warrants for an ?always on?
device. ?You have an expectation of privacy in your home, and I have a big problem that law enforcement can use the technology that advances

our quality of life against us,? Ms. Weber said.

Mr. Mozer said that even more interesting than analyzing Alexa data to solve a murder case is a scenario where a government agency went to a
company like Google and asked them to remotely con?gure a voice recognition device to constantly record a suspected terrorist. "Is the

plumbing in place to allow the device to do that? I suspect there is," he said.
IOT Skepticism

Some are skeptical about the potential of devices to help police investigations. In a Feb. 5 letter to Harvard professor and privacy advocate
Jonathan Zittrain, who authored a paper about how devices can be used for surveillance, Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance argued
that the Internet of Things won't end up being as useful as cell phones in criminal investigations. "Even if evidence collection through can

be done ef?ciently," he said, "People with something to hide can (and will) choose to avoid 

It?s unclear whether a tech company would be compelled to turn over customer data from an device, said Ian Ballon, an Internet litigator at
Greenberg Traurig. Most case law revolves around cell phone towers and location data, rather than Internet of Things devices?and much of it

relates to the Electronic Communications and Privacy Act, which was crafted in the 19805.

Moreover, there is a discrepancy in data collection rules between civil and criminal cases. As current law stands, in a civil case, someone can
only get information about what time someone communicated with a device or for how long, but wouldn?t be able to get ?content data? like an

audio recording. But it theoretically could in a criminal case, Mr. Ballon said.

As for Mr. Bates, court records suggest the device prosecutors got more from wasn?t the Alexa but the home?s smart water meter. It showed that
someone used 140 gallons of water between 1 am. and 3 am. at Mr. Bates? house, a much heavier than usual amount. Prosecutors allege that
was a result of Mr. Bates using a garden hose to spray down the back patio area from the blood. Ms. Weber is disputing the accuracy of the smart
meter readings. And, in a decidedly non-digital strategy, she says the water outside the tub couldn?t have come from a garden hose. Mr. Bates

had a salt water tub, and she says all the water on the outside of the tub had salt residue.

nform ati on.com/am azon- echo-and-the- hot-tub- urder 2/5

1/4/2017 Amazon Echo and the Hot Tub Murder The Information

9

3 SUBSCRIBER COMMENTS

EXCLUSIVE Amazon Echo and the Hot Tub Murder Share full article
a CEO and Founder, Ideas Never Cease

8 days ago

Hmpf, this reeks ofthe same federal ploys to put surveillance in devices that the FBI tried to play with Apple. Setting precedents and all that.

Of *course* the smart water meter would provide more information about this particular crime than a device like Alexa. We?re supposed to like this
brave new world? Hah.

Like - Reed Albergotti and CY. Lee liked this.

Jonathan David Nelson
CEO, Hackers Founders
8 days ago
Can we please invent technology that doesn?t require me to throw away my privacy to enjoy?

Like - Dave Morin, Felice Lesser and 2 others liked this.

Danny Sullivan
Founding editor, Marketing Land
8 days ago
My understanding with these devices is that they?re always listening but not always recording. And in particular, they?re always listening for particular

their particular hotwords like ?Alexa? or Google.?

This is covered in the story, of course but I thinkthe distinction can be lost on some. It?s one reason I?ve not had a privacy freakout overthese.
What?s recorded is what actually follows a wake-word.

Of course, it would be interesting ifthey could be remotely triggered to listen. I suspect we?ll see some digging now on what the safeguards are or,
perhaps more likely, the technical limitations of having them always broadcasting back. I suspect the backend systems aren?t designed to receive a
long stream of data like that.

One last thing: if handing overthe ?account information? means username and password, then they also got all the Echo information that?s recorded.
It?s all stored and reviewable by anyone in the Alexa app.

Like - Marcel Weiss, Jeff Weisbein and 9 others liked this.

 

Want to comment? Become a contributor.

To keep the quality of our comments high, we review each person's pro?le when they apply to be a contributor. It's simple to sign up and will only
take a few minutes. We'd love to read your take and so would your fellow subscribers.

nform ati on.com lam azon- echo-and-the- hot-tub- urder 3/5

1/4/2017 Amazon Echo and the Hot Tub Murder The Information

You might also like

EXCLUSIVE Amazon Echo and the Hot Tub Murder
Payments 

Financial Services subscriptions 

a a 20 Credit Cards 


Checkout

Deposits 

 

PKIIM So?woro. -'80 -'96 Apps. ?00 M5. '16 8015.13 
I
Platform I. 
Gatekeepers I None KeyVertical
Dominant Players a 
Development Client-dominant Server-dominant Client-dominant 
Paradigm develop-eel 6mm! mm. armour-m
II II
Opportunity for
Developers Weak Strong Weak Strong
Why Amazon Will Launch Self-Driving Car Effort Bot Check-In: A Year of Disappointment
By The Information Staff By Sam Lessin

2013-2016 The Information. All Rights Reserved.

nform ati on.com lam azon- echo-and-the- hot-tub- urder 4/5

1/4/2017 Amazon Echo and the Hot Tub Murder The Information

EXCLUSIVE Amazon Echo and the Hot Tub Murder

nform ati on.com/am azon- echo-and-the- hot-tub- urder 5/5

EXHIBIT 

Arkansas Prosecutors Seek Possible Evidence for Murder From Amazon Echo Device - ABC News

Arkansas Prosecutors Seek Possible Evidence for Murder
From Amazon Echo Device
Share with Facebook

By ABC NEWS

Share with Twitter

· Dec 29, 2016, 7:57 AM ET

Mark Lennihan/AP Photo

WATCH

Prosecutors Seek Possible Evidence From Amazon Echo in Slaying

0
SHARES

Prosecutors in Arkansas believe that information gathered by an Amazon Echo
device could potentially provide evidence in an ongoing murder trial, and are
pressing Amazon to give them data from the device belonging to the defendant.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/arkansas-prosecutors-seek-evidence-murder-amazon-echo-device/story?id=44439545[2/3/2017 3:07:26 PM]

 Arkansas Prosecutors Seek Possible Evidence for Murder From Amazon Echo Device - ABC News

Authorities are seeking the data to aid in their investigation of the alleged
murder of Victor Collins, whose body was found in a hot tub at the home of his
friend, James Bates on November 22, 2015. Bates was charged with Collins'
murder, said Nathan Smith, the prosecuting attorney in Bentonville, Arkansas,
during an interview with "Good Morning America" that aired today.
Amazon Completes 1st Drone Delivery
Suspect in Death of DC Yoga Teacher Charged With Murder
"Like any other defendant he is innocent until proven guilty," Smith said of
Bates. "The issue that I think that has drawn national attention is the search
warrant for Amazon echo device."
"We’re still in process of trying to obtain any info on that Echo device. I don’t
know if it has anything on it or not," Smith said. "The purpose of doing the
search warrant is to determine if there is information on that Echo device that
would either be helpful in the prosecution of Mr. Bates, or be exculpatory for Mr.
Bates, and we as law enforcement have an obligation to find out what’s on that
device to ensure that justice is done."
Smith said that the request for data has "been spun as an issue of privacy."
But, he says, "It really doesn’t have anything to do with that. In our legal system,
law enforcement can search property by lawfully obtaining a search warrant."
He added, "The only thing novel about is it’s a relatively new device."
The Amazon Echo device, which has both speakers and a microphone, can
respond to a user's voice commands or questions after it is activated with the
wake word "Alexa," according to Amazon's website for the product. A user may
also review past voice interactions with Alexa, which are stored in the device's
settings.
Amazon pushed back against releasing Bates' information, saying in a
statement that it "will not release customer information without a valid and
binding legal demand properly served on us."
"Amazon objects to overbroad or otherwise inappropriate demands as a matter
of course," the company added.
Bates' defense attorney Kimberly Weber said in an interview with "GMA" she
thinks Amazon "is going to take a very strong stance and do everything in its
power to prevent this from being released because it wants to make sure that its
customers are comfortable with its product.”

http://abcnews.go.com/US/arkansas-prosecutors-seek-evidence-murder-amazon-echo-device/story?id=44439545[2/3/2017 3:07:26 PM]

 Arkansas Prosecutors Seek Possible Evidence for Murder From Amazon Echo Device - ABC News

Weber also argued that Amazon Echo data is not always reliable, and could
easily be used out of context.
“My client is innocent," Weber said. "I am not concerned at all with the
information being released, but I have a stand and my client is united in my
stand, that we are going to do everything we can to protect his privacy and the
privacy of others.”

Comments

http://abcnews.go.com/US/arkansas-prosecutors-seek-evidence-murder-amazon-echo-device/story?id=44439545[2/3/2017 3:07:26 PM]

 Prosecutors Get Warrant for Amazon Echo Data in Arkansas Murder Case - NBC News

WATCH LIVE: JOE BIDEN SPEAKS AT MEDICAL TECH SUMMIT
SECTIONS

NIGHTLY NEWS

TECH INTERNET

GET ALERTS

MEET THE PRESS

GADGETS

DATELINE

SECURITY

INNOVATION

TECH DEC 28 2016, 2:13 PM ET

Prosecutors Get Warrant for
Amazon Echo Data in Arkansas
Murder Case
by ERIK ORTIZ

SHARE

Why using this Amazon device may mean losing
your privacy 4:36
The Amazon Echo is a voice-activated smart speaker
that plays music, gives the weather forecast and
updates its owner's shopping lists, among other
everyday tasks.
But prosecutors in Arkansas believe one such virtual
assistant may hold something far more crucial: data
that can help in a murder trial.
The case against Bentonville man James Bates is
gaining national attention after prosecutors confirmed

http://www.nbcnews.com/tech/internet/prosecutors-get-warrant-amazon-echo-data-arkansas-murder-case-n700776[2/3/2017 3:08:33 PM]

MOBILE

 Prosecutors Get Warrant for Amazon Echo Data in Arkansas Murder Case - NBC News

there is an active warrant to obtain information from his
Amazon Echo.
While Benton County prosecutor Nathan Smith told
NBC News they're not trying to force Amazon to
comply with the warrant — and the e-commerce giant
says it has refused anyway — the case is putting a
spotlight on how newer types of personal technology
have become sought-after pieces of evidence.
Kim Weber, Bates' attorney, said that although he has
nothing to hide, she is still worried about the issue of
privacy. It's a familiar concern: How cellphones are
used to track people and whether seizing certain
information on them is legal has been taken up by
various courts.
"It is disconcerting for me as a defense attorney to
know that we are purchasing these wonderful items to
help us in our home ... to help us in our quality of life,
and then they can be turned around and ... used
against us to charge us in crimes," Weber told NBC
News on Tuesday.

Alexa, whodunit? Police seek Amazon Echo data
to solve murder 2:30
She added that Amazon was right in protecting her
client.
In Bates' case, prosecutors sought the Amazon Echo's
electronic data from Nov. 21 to Nov. 22 of last year,
when a homicide at his home occurred, to help piece
http://www.nbcnews.com/tech/internet/prosecutors-get-warrant-amazon-echo-data-arkansas-murder-case-n700776[2/3/2017 3:08:33 PM]

 Prosecutors Get Warrant for Amazon Echo Data in Arkansas Murder Case - NBC News

together what happened.
Bates is charged in the murder of co-worker Victor
Collins. Police said Bates had invited Collins and two
other buddies over to watch football, and they drank
beer and vodka.
One of the friends left, and Bates, Collins and the other
friend got into a hot tub where they continued to drink
until 1 a.m., according to an affidavit. Bates said he
decided to go to bed, but woke up hours later and
found Collins face down in the water.
Bates called 911, and detectives found Collins' body.
The affidavit said he died of homicide by strangulation
with a contributing cause of drowning.
But investigators noted that Collins was bleeding and
bruised on his face, and that there was evidence of a
struggle and a cover-up. They also found Bates made
calls throughout the night to various numbers that
didn't go through, which appeared inconsistent with
him saying he was sleeping, according to the affidavit.
Bates told police the calls were so-called "butt dials."

Amazon Echo Is Siri On Steroids, for the
Connected Home 2:28
The other friend who was with the pair had returned
home by 12:30 a.m., his wife told investigators, and he
showed no signs of physical struggle, the affidavit said.
Bates was examined and there was bruising as well as
http://www.nbcnews.com/tech/internet/prosecutors-get-warrant-amazon-echo-data-arkansas-murder-case-n700776[2/3/2017 3:08:33 PM]

 Prosecutors Get Warrant for Amazon Echo Data in Arkansas Murder Case - NBC News

scratches on his back, arms and abdomen, the
document added.
Finally, police said, utility records showed an increase
in water usage early in the morning, suggesting the
patio had been sprayed down to eradicate evidence.
Bates pleaded not guilty in court in April and posted
bail. He faces a trial next year.
While an Amazon Echo was located inside the home,
prosecutors have not said exactly what they might be
looking for to aid in the case. Police were able to
access data on the device, and prosecutors have
discussed with Amazon getting further data from it or
the company's servers, where the information s stored.
Related: Microsoft Wins Major Court Battle Over
Email Privacy
Amazon in a statement said it "will not release
customer information without a valid and binding legal
demand properly served on us. Amazon objects to
overbroad or otherwise inappropriate demands as a
matter of course."
Benton County prosecutors argue Amazon has no
legal standing in Bates' case not to turn over pertinent
information.
The Amazon Echo, by design, holds a wealth of
knowledge. The Internet- and Bluetooth-enabled
device is constantly listening. When someone gives
the trigger word — usually the name Alexa — and then
asks a question or makes a command, the virtual
assistant does its best to comply.
And, in those moments, Alexa is also recording.

http://www.nbcnews.com/tech/internet/prosecutors-get-warrant-amazon-echo-data-arkansas-murder-case-n700776[2/3/2017 3:08:33 PM]

 Prosecutors Get Warrant for Amazon Echo Data in Arkansas Murder Case - NBC News

Police Demand 'Amazon Echo' Data as Part of
Arkansas Murder Investigation 1:39
Craig Ball, an Austin, Texas, attorney and computer
forensic examiner who owns an Amazon Echo, said
he's able to go back to his recording history and listen
to what he's commanded in the past. If a conversation
was going on simultaneously or the TV was on, he can
hear that as well.
That's why prosecutors would be interested in prying
into an Amazon Echo — Alexa could in some ways be
an alibi for someone or have recorded snippets of an
incriminating conversation.
"If there was a quarrel going on, if an individual was on
the phone at the same time, you might be able to hear
that," Ball said. "While the command is being spoken,
it's picking everything up."
But, for now, Benton County prosecutors say the data
Amazon might have is not as important as other
records, unrelated to the Amazon Echo, that have
already been obtained — so there's no need to use
litigation to get the company to surrender the data.
It's unclear how long Amazon stores customers' Alexa
recordings.
Still, Ball said, people shouldn't have a reasonable
expectation that their data is off limits when a thirdparty company holds it.

http://www.nbcnews.com/tech/internet/prosecutors-get-warrant-amazon-echo-data-arkansas-murder-case-n700776[2/3/2017 3:08:33 PM]

 Prosecutors Get Warrant for Amazon Echo Data in Arkansas Murder Case - NBC News

The issue of privacy and police seizing personal data
and devices, including smartphones and computers, is
only going to get thornier as people use more
sophisticated technology in their routine activities, the
American Civil Liberties Union cautions.
"Just as with mobile phones, the data these devices
collect can paint an intimate picture of our inner and
personal lives," said ACLU staff attorney Brett Max
Kaufman. " ... Going forward the courts should be
careful to understand and appreciate the important
privacy concerns that these devices present."
ERIK ORTIZ
CONTRIBUTORS DAVID DOUGLAS
TOPICS INTERNET, CRIME & COURTS, U.S. NEWS
FIRST PUBLISHED DEC 28 2016, 2:14 PM ET
NEXT STORY Alternativefacts.com Links to Magazine Story About
Gaslighting

ABOUT US

CAREERS

CONTACT

PRIVACY POLICY NEW

ADVERTISE

ADCHOICES

TERMS OF SERVICE

NBCNEWS.COM SITE MAP

© 2017 NBCNEWS.COM

http://www.nbcnews.com/tech/internet/prosecutors-get-warrant-amazon-echo-data-arkansas-murder-case-n700776[2/3/2017 3:08:33 PM]

 Amazon pushes back on prosecutor request for Alexa smart speaker info - CNN.com

Home

U.S. Edition +

Alexa, can you help with this murder case?
By Eliott C. McLaughlin and Keith Allen, CNN
Updated 8:48 PM ET, Wed December 28, 2016

Was Amazon Echo
a witness to killing?

Girl uses Amazon
Echo to order huge

Content by LendingTree
Rates now at 3.2% APR (15 Yr Fixed). Do
you qualify?
Fastest way to pay off $10,000 in credit card
debt

doll house

Can you save on your mortgage?
Anchor activates
Alexa through
airwaves

Amazon Echo is
coming to Ford cars

The amazing VA benefits not enough vets
are claiming
People are stockpiling miles with this insane
credit card

Paid Partner Content
Amazon unveils new
delivery service

http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/28/tech/amazon-echo-alexa-bentonville-arkansas-murder-case-trnd/[2/3/2017 3:10:14 PM]

Top 7 cards for excellent credit
NextAdvisor

 Amazon pushes back on prosecutor request for Alexa smart speaker info - CNN.com

Save on hotels around the world with
Booking.com Booking.com

Human hands barely
touch Amazon
packages

Free 30-day workout video trial with Daily
Burn Daily Burn

Amazon unveils
Prime Air plane

10 mind-blowing credit cards charging 0%
interest until 2018 NextAdvisor
Amazon premieres
'The Grand Tour'

15 houseplants for improving indoor air
quality Mother Nature Network

It's always Prime
Day for Amazon

Amazon earnings
miss expectations

Amazon wants to
take over your
kitchen

Story highlights

(CNN) — Amazon is pushing back
against an Arkansas prosecutor's

Arkansas prosecutor seeks data from murder
suspect's Amazon Echo smart speaker

demand for information from a murder
suspect's Echo smart speaker, setting

Amazon won't turn over info; defense attorney
says nothing on device "will hurt us"

up another legal battle over
investigators' quest for technologybased evidence and American privacy

rights.
Benton County Prosecuting Attorney Nathan Smith hopes the voice-activated
Echo -- which answers users' questions, plays music, reads news and connects
to other smart devices -- will provide information on how a man came to be
found dead in 31-year-old James Bates' hot tub.
Bates' defense attorney, Kimberly Weber, says there is nothing useful on the
device and applauds Amazon for protecting her client's privacy. Bates, who was
arrested in February on suspicion of first-degree murder, is presently free on a
$350,000 bond. A discovery hearing in his case is scheduled for March.
As technology has become more and
more integral to daily life, authorities

http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/28/tech/amazon-echo-alexa-bentonville-arkansas-murder-case-trnd/[2/3/2017 3:10:14 PM]

 Amazon pushes back on prosecutor request for Alexa smart speaker info - CNN.com

Related Video: How did FBI get hackers
to access terrorist's iPhone? 01:54

have increasingly sought evidence
from mobile phones, laptops, social
media, even the Warcraft video game.

The investigation into the 2015 mass shooting in San Bernardino, California,
pitted Apple, which built one of the shooter's mobile phones, against the FBI,
which wanted the tech giant's help cracking the device's PIN code. The trial of
Justin Ross Harris, the Georgia dad convicted of leaving his young son in a hot
car to die, regularly delved into texts, Google searches and Reddit posts.
Attempting to mine a smart speaker for information may be a first, though.

Different expectation of privacy?
Joel Reidenberg, the founding academic director for Fordham University's
Center for Law and Information Policy, told CNN it's the first such case he's
seen, but he isn't surprised that smart speakers are already the subject of a
court battle.
While some might argue that voice
technology such as Echo, Siri or
Related Video: Sexting and Hot Car
Death: Is is relevant? 04:25

Google Home, which assist users with
queries and tasks, come with a
different expectation of privacy than,
say, social media postings or Internet

searches, Reidenberg said he feels such an attitude is naive.
"I think Amazon is likely going to lose that motion if it goes up the chain of
appellate courts," he said.
According to Amazon, Echo works by constantly listening for the "wake word" -"Alexa" or "Amazon," by default -- and then records your voice and transfers it
to a processor for analysis so that it can fulfill requests or answer questions.
The recordings are streamed and stored remotely, and can be reviewed or
deleted over time, Amazon says.
"How is that any different from you sitting at your keyboard typing?" Reidenberg
asked.

The case

http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/28/tech/amazon-echo-alexa-bentonville-arkansas-murder-case-trnd/[2/3/2017 3:10:14 PM]

 Amazon pushes back on prosecutor request for Alexa smart speaker info - CNN.com

The Amazon Echo entered the November 2015 murder case because someone
present on the night of Collins' death allegedly recalled hearing music
streaming through the device that evening.
Bates had invited two friends -- one of them former Georgia police officer Victor
Collins, 47 -- over to his Bentonville home, where they watched college football,
drank beer and shot vodka, according to the search warrant affidavit filed in
Benton County Circuit Court. The men decided to get into Bates' hot tub and
Bates said he went to bed around 1 a.m. When he awoke in the morning,
Collins was floating face-down in the hot tub, the affidavit says.
Bates' attorney, Kimberly Weber, says Collins was Bates' friend, and his death
was a tragic accident, possibly stemming from his drinking. Collins' bloodalcohol content at the time of death was .32, four times the legal limit to drive in
Arkansas, she said.
The Amazon Echo is always listening for its wake word.

"It's not a murder at all. It's an accident," she said, adding that she feels calling
the case against her client circumstantial would be giving it too much credit.
Investigators contend in the affidavit there were signs of a struggle, including
injuries to Collins and Bates, a broken shot glass, dried blood inside the home
and indications the patio and hot tub had been hosed down before police
arrived.
Another smart device, Bates' water heater, points to an exorbitant amount of
water being used in the early-morning hours, in what investigators believe was
an attempt to cover up a crime, the affidavit says.
Weber argues the amount of water was unremarkable and nearly equal to the
amount of water used in the home 12 hours earlier, she said.

Amazon: Demand 'overbroad'
Smith, the prosecutor, told CNN that the data the Echo captured on the night of
Collins' death could provide clues as to what happened.
His office made two attempts to obtain the data from the Echo, but Amazon
refused both times. The company declined to comply with a search warrant, he
said.
"They'll say it's for privacy reasons, but I don't believe they have a legal leg to

http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/28/tech/amazon-echo-alexa-bentonville-arkansas-murder-case-trnd/[2/3/2017 3:10:14 PM]

 Amazon pushes back on prosecutor request for Alexa smart speaker info - CNN.com

stand on," he said. "I don't think they're a bad company or anything, but I don't
think they want to release it because they want to sell more of them."
Investigators have routinely obtained
warrants for suspects' phones,
Related Video: Cyber security in the
mobile era 03:59

computers, even their blood, he said,
so "there's not a rational or legal
reason that we shouldn't be able to
search that device."

Amazon disagrees.
"Amazon will not release customer information without a valid and binding legal
demand properly served on us," it said in a statement. "Amazon objects to
overbroad or otherwise inappropriate demands as a matter of course."
The company's representatives did not respond to a follow-up email asking why
Amazon did not feel the search warrant constituted a valid legal demand.
Weber said Amazon did provide prosecutors with Bates' subscriber information.
The attorney also noted that the documentation that comes with the Echo
states that Amazon cannot guarantee that "its functionality or content ... is
accurate, reliable, or complete." To try to enter an Echo's recordings as
evidence is "crazy," given the disclaimer, she said. Not that she's terribly
worried.
"There's nothing on the Amazon Echo that will hurt us," Weber said. "We're not
fearful of anything being provided, if Amazon does indeed respond."

Orwellian implications?
Weber is adamant in her assertion that devices like the Echo are designed to
make life easier around the home and "shouldn't be used against you." While
Fordham's Reidenberg understands the sentiment, he expects attitudes to
change as the devices become more ubiquitous. We've already witnessed it
with mobile phones, he said.
"We haven't yet seen, but we will see,
the same kind of things happening
Related Video: Privacy and your emails
03:54

with these voice-activated home
devices," he said, predicting the
content of smart speakers will soon

http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/28/tech/amazon-echo-alexa-bentonville-arkansas-murder-case-trnd/[2/3/2017 3:10:14 PM]

 Amazon pushes back on prosecutor request for Alexa smart speaker info - CNN.com

be regularly featured in divorce cases.
"These are the perfect surveillance devices, if they aren't treated with care."
Another question, he said, is how a device that's "always listening" processes
what it hears. Sure, Amazon says the Echo records only after users utter the
wake word, but, Reidenberg asks, will that always be the case?
"That could change tomorrow," he said. "That's just today's architecture for it."
The Electronic Privacy Information Center has long been concerned about
"always-on" devices and wrote in a July 2015 letter to the US Justice
Department that such machines are "increasingly prevalent in the 'Internet of
Things,'" the term used for the networking of common, everyday objects,
allowing them to send and receive data.
Along with the Amazon Echo, other technology cited in EPIC's letter were
Samsung smart televisions, Google's Chromium browser, Mattel's "Hello
Barbie" doll, Microsoft Kinect for the Xbox, Nest Cam security cameras and
Canary Connect home security devices.
"Americans do not expect that the devices in their homes will persistently record
everything they say," EPIC warned the Justice Department. "By introducing
'always on' voice recording into ordinary consumer products such as
computers, televisions and toys, companies are listening to consumers in their
most private spaces.
"It is unreasonable to expect consumers to monitor their every word in front of
their home electronics. It is also genuinely creepy."
Follow @eliottcnn
CNN's Lauren Leslie contributed to this report.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/28/tech/amazon-echo-alexa-bentonville-arkansas-murder-case-trnd/[2/3/2017 3:10:14 PM]

 Amazon pushes back on prosecutor request for Alexa smart speaker info - CNN.com

Search CNN...

U.S.

World

Crime + Justice

Africa

2016 Election

Markets

Energy + Environment

Americas

Washington

Tech

Extreme Weather

Asia

Nation

Media

Space + Science

Europe

World

Personal Finance
Luxury

Middle East

Opinion

Health

Political Op-Eds

Diet + Fitness

Social Commentary

Living Well
Parenting + Family

Stars
Screen
Binge
Culture
Media

Business
Culture
Gadgets
Future
Startups

Travel

Living

Fashion

Best of Travel

Pro Football

Food

Design

Sleeps + Eats

College Football

Relationships

Architecture

Business Travel

Basketball

Religion

Aviation + Beyond

Baseball

Arts
Autos

Soccer

Luxury

Video

More…

Live TV

Photos

Digital Studios

Longform

CNN Films

Investigations

HLN

iReport

TV Schedule

CNN profiles

TV Shows A-Z

CNN Leadership
CNN Newsletters

U.S. Edition +

© 2017 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/28/tech/amazon-echo-alexa-bentonville-arkansas-murder-case-trnd/[2/3/2017 3:10:14 PM]

 Amazon pushes back on prosecutor request for Alexa smart speaker info - CNN.com
CNN Sans ™ & © 2016 Cable News Network.
Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   AdChoices

  About us   Visit CNN   Newsletters   Work for us   Help   Transcripts   License Footage   CNN Newsource

http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/28/tech/amazon-echo-alexa-bentonville-arkansas-murder-case-trnd/[2/3/2017 3:10:14 PM]