Cash App Law Enforcement Search Warrant: Drafting and Service

A Cash App law enforcement search warrant is served on Block, Inc.’s Law Enforcement Response Team, and the type of legal process required depends on what data investigators want: subscriber details can be reached with a subpoena, non-content metadata generally requires a court order, and the contents of user communications require a warrant based on probable cause. Block accepts warrants and other legal process through its online Law Enforcement Information Request form, applies a minimum 60-day response window, and reserves the right to reject requests it considers overly broad or vague.¹

What Legal Process You Need for Which Records

The Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2703, sets the tiers. What you serve depends on what you’re asking for.²

Subscriber information (name, address, payment details, length of service) can be obtained by subpoena, court order, or warrant.
Non-content records and metadata (login history, connection records, IP addresses) typically require at least a § 2703(d) court order, which demands specific and articulable facts showing the records are relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation.²
Contents of communications (such as stored in-app messages) require a search warrant based on probable cause if the content has been in electronic storage for 180 days or fewer, or if the government wants to obtain it without notifying the account holder.²

A separate track applies when investigators want to freeze or take money in an account rather than pull records. On Block’s request form, that means selecting “Seizure Warrant” as the case type so the request routes to the correct internal team.³ Courts treat these differently, too. In United States v. Broughton and Gibbs in the Eastern District of Kentucky, investigators obtained a warrant to seize the balance of a Cash App account as narcotics proceeds. The court distinguished this from a warrant for social media account data, reasoning that seizing a specific asset did not raise the “digital rummaging” concerns that accompany searching an entire account’s communications and records.⁴ The defendant later abandoned his challenge, and the court found the issue moot since the warrant sought only funds.⁵

How to Serve Block With Legal Process

Block’s preferred channel is its online Law Enforcement Information Request form.³ The company discourages mail, citing “inherent delays and additional processing time,” and it does not accept service by email or in person at any office.¹ Civil subpoenas sent by mail must go through Block’s national registered agent, CT Corporation.

Use the correct legal entity. Block, Inc. stopped accepting process addressed to “Square, Inc.” as of May 1, 2022.⁶ The mailing address for law enforcement correspondence is Block, Inc., Attn: Law Enforcement Response Team, 1955 Broadway, Suite 600, Oakland, CA 94612.

Block states a minimum response time of 60 days from receipt of valid legal process, which is longer than many technology providers. Emergency requests can be expedited only on “a demonstration of imminent threat to life or safety,” and the request form carries an “exigent” flag for those situations.¹

Block’s guidelines do not name a required issuing jurisdiction, but the company states that accepting process through its designated channels “does not waive any objections, including, but not limited to, lack of jurisdiction or proper service.”⁶ In practice, Block can accept a submission and still object later.

Preserving Records While You Get the Warrant

The SCA lets you lock records down while the warrant is being drafted. On a formal law enforcement request, a provider must preserve relevant records for 90 days, renewable for another 90.² Block accepts preservation requests through the same channels used for other legal process.¹ Given Block’s 60-day floor for responding to warrants, sending a preservation letter early is often the difference between securing records and losing them.

What a Cash App Warrant Can Return

Cash App accounts hold a wide range of investigative data. Based on law enforcement training materials, categories to consider in a warrant include:

Account information: name, date of birth, address, email, and phone number captured during identity verification.
Transaction history: amounts, timestamps, and sender and recipient identifiers, including usernames, phone numbers, and email addresses.
Financial records: linked bank accounts, debit and credit cards, and Bitcoin wallet and transaction history.
Communication data: messages exchanged between users within the app.
Location and network data: IP addresses, network provider location, and available geolocation data.
Device information: device type, operating system, and device identifiers.
Account activity: login and logout timestamps and records of changes to account settings or linked financial instruments.

Ask specifically for transaction “notes.” Cash App users can attach text when sending money, and those notes sometimes contain admissions or useful context. Pairing historical login data with device identifiers also lets you cross-reference Cash App activity with data pulled from a suspect’s phone.

Drafting for Particularity

Because Block will reject requests it deems overly broad or vague, disclosing only data that is specifically identified and reasonably locatable, particularity is not optional.¹ Identify the target account as precisely as you can, by $cashtag, email address, phone number, or other unique identifier, and list the specific categories of data sought. The ACLU has argued that digital warrants must be limited to “specific categories of information” relevant to the investigation to prevent “general searches” that sweep in unrelated private data.⁷ A tightly scoped warrant is both more likely to survive challenge and less likely to bounce back from Block.

The Constitutional Backdrop

The SCA remains the primary statutory authority, but the Fourth Amendment analysis around third-party digital records is unsettled. In Carpenter v. United States (2018), the Supreme Court held that obtaining seven days of cell-site location data from a wireless carrier without a warrant violated the Fourth Amendment, given the volume and intimacy of the records. The Brennan Center has identified five factors from Carpenter that courts weigh in third-party data cases: how intimate the data is, how comprehensive, how cheaply obtained, how far back it reaches, and whether the user truly shared it voluntarily.⁸

Carpenter did not overturn United States v. Miller (1976), which held that bank records shared with a financial institution are not Fourth Amendment–protected, and legal commentators have flagged the tension this creates for detailed digital payment histories.⁹ The Supreme Court has not resolved how Carpenter applies to payment platform records, so investigators should assume the SCA tiers control while building warrants that could also withstand a probable-cause challenge under evolving Fourth Amendment law.

1
Block, Inc. Legal Process Guidelines for Law Enforcement
2
Legal Information Institute. 18 U.S.C. § 2703 – Required Disclosure of Customer Communications or Records
3
Block, Inc. Law Enforcement Information Request Form
4
GovInfo. United States v. Broughton and Gibbs, 2:24-cr-00004 – Report and Recommendation
5
GovInfo. United States v. Broughton and Gibbs, 2:24-cr-00004 – Memorandum Order
6
Square. Legal Process Guidelines
7
ACLU. Digital Age Warrants
8
Brennan Center for Justice. The Fourth Amendment in the Digital Age
9
Princeton Legal Journal. Carpenter v. United States: The Stored Communications Act and the Third-Party Doctrine in the Digital Age