In the specific cases in question, the officers had video evidence of one of the perpetrators using a cell phone, and used that to justify the warrant. The court ruled that even this was insufficient, but is part of the reason why they are not applying the exclusionary rule to these cases even though the evidence itself is inadmissible.

> Huh? The entire point the parent was making is that they do "know" which cell phones were connected during specific times.

As I understand it, the point is that law enforcement does not know this, and thus they send a request to the service provider for all devices within this geofence within this timebox.

The service provider must then search the entirety of the relevant datastores for devices matching the geo- and time requirements.