“Alexa, how do I cover up a murder.” These are the words that detectives from the Bentonville Arkansas police department may have been looking for when they served Amazon.com, Inc. with search warrants requesting “audio recordings and transcripts” from an Amazon Echo device owned by James Bates and located in his home. [1] At the time, the Bentonville police were investigating a death that occurred at Mr. Bates’ residence as a possible murder. In response, Amazon supplied the police with “subscriber information and purchase history for [Bates’] Amazon account,” [2] but did not provide everything that was requested in the warrant. When the Bentonville police later announced that it would seek full compliance with the warrants, Amazon filed a motion to quash, accompanied by a lengthy memorandum of law supporting its position. However, before a court could rule on Amazon’s motion, Mr. Bates gave consent for Amazon to hand over the Echo recordings for his account.

The voice-activated Amazon Echo, however, was not the only “smart” device in Mr. Bates’ home that played a key part in the investigation leading up to Bates’ arrest. Mr. Bates’ residence was outfitted with a smart meter from the City of Bentonville Utilities Department, a device that “electronically takes hourly measurements for the consumption of electricity and water,” [3] and sends the data back to the utilities department’s headquarters for storage as electronic records.

Detectives from the Bentonville police department obtained records produced by the smart meter at Mr. Bates’ home after meeting with the “Billing and Collections Manager for the City of Bentonville Utilities Department.” [4] Those records show that an excessive amount of water was used at the residence between the hours of 1:00 and 3:00 a.m., the early morning hours when the death of the victim allegedly occurred. A review of “all water usage information, since October 2013 at [Bates’] residence,” showed that “this excessive amount of water usage between [1:00 and 3:00 a.m.] had never before occurred.” [5] This information, when considered by itself, does not explain why an abnormal amount of water was used. But, when considered in light of other evidence it may be one piece of a the puzzle that explains how the victim died, and perhaps how foul play was covered up.

The administrative processes that were followed by law enforcement investigators to request information related to the Amazon Echo and smart meter are strikingly different. Likewise, the two entities that were in possession of the desired information took remarkably different positions when presented with law enforcement requests for data.

Police were required to first obtain a search warrant to request the Echo data, and Amazon vociferously fought the request in the name of consumer privacy. On the other hand, police merely had to ask the Bentonville Utilities Department if they could have a look at Mr. Bates’ smart meter records, and the person in charge of billings and collections handed over all records related to the smart meter going back over three years.

The Bentonville police department’s investigation of the death at Mr. Bates’ Arkansas home presents an excellent backdrop for examining legal issues that are arise out of the pervasive use of smart devices, the growing trend to connect everything to the Internet, and the massive amounts of data collected by Internet-connected devices. First, the case shows how pieces of data from various types of Internet-connected devices can be used to assemble a detailed picture of what happened on one night in the privacy of a person’s home. It demonstrates that there is no single standard governing law enforcement’s access to data produced from the use of connected devices. Finally, the case shows that the entities that possess and control electronic data produced by connected devices will take remarkably different positions when presented with law enforcement requests for data. Some will simple give up the data with no questions asked; some will fight to preserve privacy; while the rest fall somewhere in between.

[1] State v. Bates, Circuit Court of Arkansas, Benton County, Case No. CR-2016-370-2, Memorandum of Law in Support of Amazon’s Motion to Quash Search Warrant (Feb. 17, 2017). The Bentonville police department obtained a search warrant directed to Amazon on December 4, 2015, and on January 29, 2016, obtained an extension of the warrant. Id.

[2] Id.

[3] State v. Bates, Circuit Court of Arkansas, Benton County, Case No. CR-2016-370-2, Affidavit of Probable Cause to Obtain an Arrest Warrant (Feb. 22, 2016).

[4] Id.

[5] Id.