Silicon Valley’s amazing technology has made our lives easier. Voice assistants like Amazon’s Alexa can tell us the weather, play our favorite music on command, and add grocery items to our shopping lists. With the tap of a button, we can catch a ride using the Uber app. Countless other products offer similar conveniences and provide greater simplicity to our lives. However, this added convenience comes with strings attached.

By using these products, we generate vast amounts of data. These giant tech companies store that information to improve their products (and their targeted advertising). This data is increasingly entering the crosshairs of law enforcement to investigate and prosecute crimes. By putting enough pieces of your digital footprint together, law enforcement can generate a pretty complete picture of a person’s life.

Law enforcement is relying more and more on digital evidence because of how enlightening (or incriminating) this information can be. Warrants for a cell phone search are commonplace in today’s world, but as Silicon Valley develops newer products, law enforcement sees additional opportunities to gather evidence.

Recently, police in Arkansas turned their sights on an Amazon Echo smart speaker found in a murder suspect’s home. The Amazon Echo has a built-in microphone that is always listening, waiting for the user to issue a command. According to Amazon, the speaker only starts recording once it hears “Alexa.” Amazon stores the recorded commands or questions that follow in a database to improve its voice-recognition accuracy.

Police issued Amazon a search warrant for any data the speaker may have recorded on the night of the murder. Since a judge signed off on the warrant, Amazon became the last line of defense against turning over the data. Amazon refused to grant the request, citing the privacy concerns of its customers.

The murder suspect ultimately granted Amazon his consent to provide the data, moving the resolution of this legal showdown to another day. While Amazon was likely more concerned about future customer’s fear of losing their privacy, the takeaway is that this data may be easily obtainable if the company possessing it complies with the request.

The focus of this case was past data already recorded and stored, but something to consider is the possibility of tapping into the Amazon Echo’s microphone in real time. Law enforcement can obtain judicial authorization for a wiretap of a suspect’s electronic communications. Any internet-connected smart device with a microphone can theoretically be remotely activated without the user knowing, creating a bugging device. On a scarier note, hackers have demonstrated the ability to do this with ease. The average citizen probably has nothing to worry about, but public figures, politicians, journalists, etc. may want to weigh whether the convenience of these devices is worth the privacy risks they pose.

Another recent target of law enforcement has been data generated by Uber riders and drivers. Just as in the Amazon case, a judge approved the subpoena for these records. The likely trend will be that judges grant these requests with regularity. One can imagine these records being requested in a divorce or custody proceeding, revealing a spouse’s habitual Uber rides from the bar or to his or her paramour’s house.

Technology will continue to progress and tech companies will continue to vacuum up more and more data about our daily lives. It’s possible we may never be able to delete that data, or only with varying degrees of difficulty. When enjoying the conveniences of Silicon Valley technology, it must always be assumed a detailed trail will be left behind.

A “Proffer agreement,” more informally known as “queen-for-a-day” agreement, is a routine tool used in federal criminal practice.^[1] However, before you decide to enter into a proffer agreement with the government, you should take a careful look at some of the hidden pitfalls and perils associated with these agreements and weigh your options carefully.

What exactly is a proffer agreement?

A proffer agreement is a written agreement between federal prosecutors and an individual (usually the target of an investigation or a defendant), in which the individual agrees to provide information to the prosecution at an informal debriefing (also known as a “proffer session”). In return, the government promises not to use the proffer statements against the individual at any subsequent trial.^[2] However, if the individual lies during a proffer session, the government may offer those statements against him or her. More about this “impeachment” catch is discussed below. Often times, the government also reserves the right to use the information to further its investigation.

Typically, it’s understood that one enters into a proffer agreement with the hope that it will later lead to an immunity agreement or plea bargain if the government is satisfied with the information provided.

What are the risks associated with proffer agreements?

Proffer agreements carry with them unique and inherent risks that require serious consideration. Because proffer agreements are not formal immunity agreements or plea bargains, they do not offer the same protections if the government decides to act on the information turned over to them. While the government may not use proffer session statements against the individual in its case-in-chief, the government can use the information provided to follow leads and conduct further investigation. If those leads and further investigations lead to new evidence, the new evidence can be used to indict and convict the individual who gave the information in the proffer session^[3]—a particularly dangerous pitfall.

Additionally, as previously mentioned, nearly all proffer agreements contain clauses that allow the government to use false or misleading statements made during proffer sessions for impeachment purposes (that is, to discredit the witness’s testimony). Thus, if any part of the testimony or information provided during a proffer session is deemed to be misleading or outright untruthful, the entire proffer agreement can be admitted against you at trial. This can put you and your defense in an uncomfortably compromised position, all in an effort to keep the damaging proffer statements away from the ears and eyes of the jury.

What factors should you consider before entering into a proffer agreement?

Whether you should ultimately enter into a proffer agreement is not a light decision. However, some factors to consider in making the decision include:

• Likelihood of indictment;
• Strength of defense;
• Willingness to disclose the whole truth;
• Timing;
• Financial ability; and
• Effect of an indictment.^[4]

Ultimately, the decision to proffer or not is up to you, but it should not be made without the assistance of a qualified and experienced white collar criminal defense attorney. If you have been contacted by a law enforcement agency about an interview, a qualified white collar criminal defense attorney can help you decide if entering into a proffer agreement is a good option.

^[1] Richard B. Zabel, James J. Benjamin Jr., ‘Queen for A Day’ or ‘Courtesan for A Day’: The Sixth Amendment Limits to Proffer Agreements, 15 White-Collar Crime Rep. 1 (2001).

^[2] Id.

^[3] Proffer Agreement Law and Legal Definition, USLegal, Inc., https://definitions.uslegal.com/p/proffer-agreement/.

^[4] Kenneth C. Picking, The Risks and Benefits of Proffer Agreements in Parallel Proceedings, A.B.A., April 4, 2012, http://apps.americanbar.org/litigation/committees/criminal/email/winter2012/winter2012-0402-risks-benefits-proffer-agreements-parallel-proceedings.html.