Return to Transcripts main page

Smerconish

Authorities Swarm Area 2 Miles From Nancy Guthrie's Home. Privacy Concerns Brought On By The Nancy Guthrie Case; Authorities Swarm Area Two Miles From Nancy Guthrie's Home. Aired 9-10a ET

Aired February 14, 2026 - 09:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:00:20]

MICHAEL SMERCONISH, CNN ANCHOR: We're following breaking news from Arizona. Authorities may soon have a break in the disappearance of "Today" show anchor Savannah Guthrie's missing mother. I'm Michael Smerconish in the Philly burbs.

Last night, police, including SWAT teams, swarmed an area about two miles from Nancy Guthrie's home in Arizona. Authorities cleared out and reopened the roads just before 4:00 Eastern Time this morning. The sheriff's department said that because this is a joint investigation at the request of the FBI, no further information is available, but a written statement is incoming. Joining me now is John Miller, CNN Chief Law Enforcement and Intelligence Analyst and Charles Ramsey, CNN Senior Law Enforcement Analyst.

John, what information might you have? I know we're in a position where perhaps there's more unknown than known.

JOHN MILLER, CNN CHIEF LAW ENFORCEMENT AND INTELLIGENCE ANALYST: Well, what we know is that they had a location last night. They developed enough information on that location to go to a judge, get a search warrant showing they had probable cause to believe that could have something to do with this case. They hit that location. They also took an individual and detained him for questioning only. We understand that individual was cooperative, that they asked their questions, and ultimately this lead washed out.

That individual was released. It's another dead end. But, Michael, I want to point out we may see a couple more of these as this goes on. As you know, we saw one of these earlier this week 60 miles south of Tucson. The nature of a case like this is different because it's a kidnapping. Unlike the normal criminal investigation, where they can take their time and look at things much longer, there's a victim in the balance.

And in cases where they develop something that rises to probable cause, they're likely to go get that warrant and go in because of the exigent circumstances of if we have a rescue of our victim or location of our victim, we have to move faster. And I think we saw that again last night. But this particular lead is not going to go any further.

SMERCONISH: Chief Ramsey, what does your spidey sense tell you about the overall status of the investigation?

CHARLES RAMSEY, CNN SENIOR LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: Well, I mean, it's being actively investigated, and John made an excellent point. You, you know, this one may not have worked out, others may not in the future, but there's a lot of effort being put into this particular case, and they have to follow the different leads. Now they're getting thousands of tips. And one of the things you do when you have something like that, you have to prioritize. Some tips are going to look more credible than other tips.

And so they're doing the best they can to try to get through these things as fast as they can. Because this has gotten so much attention. Everything they do is going to be captured by the media. In a normal case, when you have things like this happen and maybe it's not the person that you were looking for, nobody knows other than you, simply because it's not getting the same kind of coverage. So it can give the impression that things aren't going very well, but they're still getting a lot of information.

And all it takes is one, just one solid tip to lead them to the offender in this case and hopefully to Nancy.

SMERCONISH: John, as you mentioned, they had to meet a probable cause standard in front of a magistrate. And I note that a SWAT team served the warrant. The combination of the two of those, they must have thought they were really onto something.

MILLER: As they did in the last case. But that's it. You get a lead, then you develop information on top of that lead, then you stack it up and you say, how compelling, how convincing, how urgent is this? And, you know, as you point out, as I mentioned, it's not just their judgment. In other words, they're not running around with SWAT team, in SWAT teams hitting houses.

These are carefully considered. They are discussed among the investigators and up and down the chain of command. And before they bring it to that magistrate, they are being -- they are able to present that there is a more than reasonable suspicion that this is going to be a lead that has to be covered.

Why the SWAT team? You have -- I mean, when you're talking about a kidnapping where a victim may be held in a location against their will, that's the kind of thing where you're probably going to do a more dynamic entry than a door knock. But that's up to the tactical commander at the scene about how they do that. But you bring the resources you need anyway. And behind that, we also saw the forensics teams, which means, you know, once they don't locate a victim there, they want to look and -- look for and collect any signs that a victim ever was there.

[09:05:12]

Now, in this case, it doesn't look like that this place had anything to do with it, but information was developed in the course of the investigation that led them there.

SMERCONISH: John, do you have any reporting on the Range Rover that was apparently seized?

MILLER: Nothing specific, but if you look at the dynamics of both the incident earlier this week and last night, in both cases, they stopped a car, they held that car, they obtained a search warrant for that car as well. And we saw that again last night. That's one of those things where you want to process that car and be able to find out, with the assistance of science and testing, you know, whether your victim had ever been in that house or had ever been in that car. That's the likely scenario we saw unfold last night.

SMERCONISH: Chief Ramsey, it seems like the activity, and I understand we've made clear that there's not been a successful hit so far, but that the activity seems concentrated in that local area. Your thoughts?

RAMSEY: They probably have information where they believe that this is someone involved in this who is not -- who's within that area, general area, you know, five, 10-mile radius, maybe perhaps a little bit more. But it's all based on the information that they have right now. And just to add one thing to what John said about that car, remember, there was blood found on the front porch that belonged to Nancy Guthrie. And so they'll be processing that car and any other vehicle to see whether or not she was in that car, which would not be difficult because she was bleeding. They'd be able to pick up the DNA to prove that she was actually in the car.

So that's something really to kind of keep in mind.

SMERCONISH: John, will you say something about the role that technology is playing in this? I mean, I'm mindful of the fact that the video captured the guy with the mask, then the identification of the backpack, the Walmart, possibility of purchase, I would think maybe a cross tab then with driver's license information. That's the sort of thing that is being used to piece this together that we don't see on camera. True?

MILLER: This is the quintessential example of the modern criminal investigation. It's -- It is also breaking new ground. The stunning work that was done by the FBI, the Operational Technology Division, OTD, most importantly, the engineers at Google, where they were able to dig through a system and find material that was not supposed to be retained. It was going to be recycled and recorded over. But they were able to locate that.

And we may see more of that. I mean, that's a Nest system. There are likely other cameras part of that system in that house. And the one that they focused on was the front door because that's where the blood was. But it is -- it is in the realm of possibility.

We may see more video from other cameras. But this cuts both ways, Michael, not just in all the ways you frame the technology. Store cameras, video purchases, barcodes computers. It cuts for the bad guys, too. The idea that a kidnapper who used to cut pieces out of a magazine, paste them onto a ransom note, and drop it, you know, at a location or mail it.

It is now using encrypted e-mail servers like Tor or onion servers or Proton, where literally the IP addresses are jumbled and scrambled and changed every time they communicate, making it almost impossible to trace back. And then demanding ransom, not to be dropped off in a bag of money under a tree in the -- in the downtown park, but sent to, you know, through crypto channels where it can go from one wallet to another and then spread across other wallets and convert the cash in multiple countries and be virtually untraceable. The bad guys are using the same technological advances in their science of kidnapping --

SMERCONISH: It's a good point.

MILLER: -- as law enforcement is on their side. This is a real challenge.

SMERCONISH: It's a great point. John Miller, Chief Ramsey, we appreciate both of you.

Still to come, while everybody hopes all the information will lead to a break in this case, as John Miller was just explaining, there are a number of privacy concerns that get raised. What are the broader implications, when big tech has access to all of our data? This brings me to today's poll question. Go to smerconish.com and answer this, do the benefits of technology for law enforcement outweigh any threats to individual privacy? While you're there, sign up for the free and worthy daily newsletter.

[09:10:02]

You'll get the work of illustrator like Jack Ohman.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

We're tracking breaking news in Arizona, where law enforcement spent about four hours overnight swarming an area about two miles from Nancy Guthrie's home. We just learned they did take a person in for questioning but already released that individual and do not think that he was the kidnapper. We're now entering a third week in the search. Activity has ramped up in recent days after police released this surveillance video from Nancy Guthrie's front door. Authorities say that it generated thousands of tips.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SHERIFF CHRIS NANOS, PIMA COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT: We've had 18,000 calls in our life (ph). That was a couple of days ago. It might be over 20. FBI had 14, 15,000. That's 30 some thousand calls. When we put that video out, that photo, that guy in the front doorway, that generated in a matter of hours almost 5,000 calls. Those leads, every single lead is looked at.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[09:15:10] SMERCONISH: Earlier this morning, I spoke with TMZ executive producer Harvey Levin.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: Harvey, thank you for being here. You've played such a significant role covering this case so far. I, of course, wanted to reach out. Even though we're in a position where there's more unknown than known. What thoughts do you have?

HARVEY LEVIN, EXECUTIVE PRODUCER, TMZ: So the best that I can see is that two people were definitely taken out of that house and that house was searched, 1.9 miles from Nancy Guthrie's home. There was a traffic stop. And it's -- from what I'm gleaning, it seems like the traffic stop may be the main focus. That person was detained. And it would seem there's a connection between the traffic stop and the house because it was coordinated.

As for how this went down, my -- I spoke to one law enforcement source or was in contact with one law enforcement source who was connected to this. The notes that we received, both the ransom and the reward notes, were not the trigger for this. That they were not. At least that's what I'm getting back from this one law enforcement source. I'm trying to find out what the trigger was specifically.

Was it a tip? Now, I know that they found some DNA. There was a lot of activity yesterday with the FBI. I mean, we were -- the FBI was contacting us all day yesterday about -- especially about the ransom note. And so they were definitely really interested in it.

And it was going up until -- I left the office just before 6:00 p.m. and my team was still talking to them. So what I'm told is those notes did not play a factor in this, in what happened last night. I don't know what did. Was it the DNA? It could have been.

There are ways of doing quick DNA tests. Could it have been a tip? Yes. I mean, remember the profile that was being built is starting to get somewhat specific. A guy between 5'9, 5'10, looks like he has a mustache and a goatee.

We now know the type of backpack from Walmart. We think it is -- we think we've identified the shirt he was wearing also from Walmart. Guy who is tech savvy. Guy who is smart, who can write. So look, I don't know there -- it could have been a tip, it could have been DNA.

It just seems like it was not directly any of the information we received that led to this.

SMERCONISH: Having paid close attention to what you've been reporting at TMZ, I know that you've been of the opinion. Harvey Levin's opinion has been that in all likelihood, it's probably someone within the community. We don't know. Again, we're having this conversation where there's more unknown than known. But I have to underscore that the activity that we're discussing is not here in Philadelphia, right?

It's right there in that community. LEVIN: We've been saying this two days in that this is somebody in the Tucson area. One of the reasons is just obviously he has just glommed onto the television market in Tucson, sending notes to two stations there. He's from the Tucson area. The law enforcement believe that as well, or believes that as well. So it's unsurprising.

You know, we don't know what this is, but what I can say is it's significant. I mean, it's clearly significant. They mobilized like crazy last night, and I'm going to -- I suppose, tell you something that's more atmospheric than substantive. I noticed a change yesterday when we spoke to law enforcement. There was a change just in them really playing their cards close to the vest in a different way.

I mean, they always do, but in a different way than they normally did. We noticed it yesterday morning. So I don't know. And in a material way, we really noticed a change in the way they were interacting. And I felt like something was cooking yesterday morning.

I don't know if they knew yesterday morning what they were going to do this afternoon or yesterday afternoon, but it was really a coordinated effort yesterday afternoon. So something got their attention. And again, it does not appear to be directly any of the notes that we received. It's something else.

[09:20:04]

SMERCONISH: Harvey Levin, thank you so much for the insight.

LEVIN: OK, Michael.

SMERCONISH: Still to come, your social media reaction. And don't look now, but you're being watched. We discuss privacy in a technological age. Which leads me today's poll question at smerconish.com, do the benefits of technology for law enforcement outweigh any threats to individual privacy? When you're there voting, sign up for the free and worthy daily newsletter.

You'll get the work of illustrators like Rob Rogers.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:25:07]

SMERCONISH: Hey, please follow me on X, subscribe to my YouTube channel. Then you can respond to me in the course of the program and maybe I'll reply. Country Bumpkin, we're over it. 24.7 is overkill. It's been -- oh, I love this. I have things I want to say about this.

It's been nonstop for two weeks. Just tell us when you find the kidnapper. So I do hear some of the blowback. I hear it on radio, like, why are you talking about this? Or why are you talking about it so much?

So let me tell you that I didn't intend to talk about it today. Here's what was planned for today's program. I'm going to tell you how the sausage gets made. I did intend to talk, and I am going to talk on this program in just another few minutes about the role of surveillance for law enforcement because I think that there are many of us who hope and pray that the video that was captured on the Nest camera is going to lead to a break in this case and bring this all to a close. And I'm interested in my poll question today.

The bigger picture of, yes, but what are we sacrificing in terms of our privacy? So I get three blocks for each program and a social media commentary. This is it. So the surveillance I'm still going to do. What else was I going to do on today's program?

I was going to talk about the SAVE Act. This effort to say you've got to prove citizenship and show up with a voter id. And the angle that I intended, in fact, my guest Stephen Richer, we had to cancel him. He has the data that shows that the predicate for the SAVE Act, which is that migrants are voting illegally, isn't taking place. The data does not bear that out.

Had to scrap that today. What else? Oh, and I also was going to talk to Christine Brennan about speech in the Olympics. I don't like it when the American athletes get political and then the president responds in kind. I don't like that either.

Then I find myself rooting for the Ukraine skeleton athlete who wanted to wear his helmet commemorating his fallen comrades because of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, that would have been a great block. But the reality is that when I got up this morning at 4:00 a.m. there was police activity taking place in Tucson and it seemed like there was a big break in this case. Our own John Miller was able to rule that out. But I'd have been derelict in my duty if I didn't talk about it at a moment when it's breaking and frankly, when another network is still, as of this time, still reporting that. So yes, that's my answer.

That's my answer. I'm ready to talk about other things, but I feel obliged to see this through to the end. And now you know what would have taken place but for the story that just didn't pan out. And that's the way this business works.

Make sure you're voting on today's poll question at Smerconish.com. Here it is. Do the benefits of technology for law enforcement outweigh any threats to individual privacy?

Up ahead, the latest on the Nancy Guthrie case from that angle from that angle. We're going to talk to cybersecurity expert Joseph Steinberg on how you might think you're alone, but you aren't. Not with the cameras and the computers that are monitoring our every move. Sign up for my newsletter when you're voting on the poll question. It comes out every morning. It's free and it's worthy. And you get the work of prize winning illustrators like Eric Alley (ph).

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:32:49]

SMERCONISH: So, there was a law enforcement operation at a residence two miles from Nancy Guthrie's home that's connected with the investigation. Units including SWAT and forensics were there. Earlier this hour you heard our own John Miller report that it seems like it was a dead end.

We know law enforcement in the Guthrie case has been looking for a male of medium build and a height between 5'9" and 5'10". That description follows the release this week of video captured on Guthrie's Nest doorbell camera, at her home in Tucson, showing somebody armed and in a mask on the night that she was abducted. And now investigators are also asking those in the neighborhood to share any video they may have from their own surveillance cameras in specific time frames.

The emergence of the doorbell video seemed to have breathed much needed new life into the investigation. Hopefully, it leads to the capture of whomever is behind this heinous crime, but it also raises privacy considerations for the rest of us.

A vivid reminder of the digital footprint that we are leaving every day, everywhere with our doorbell cameras, our phones, our apps, our cars, our credit cards, our online searches. Consider this, in December the Pennsylvania Supreme Court gave law enforcement a major victory when ruling in a case that citizens have no reasonable expectation of privacy in their internet search history.

The case stemmed from a sexual assault investigation where police used a reverse keyword warrant to compel Google to turn over information on anybody who had searched for the victim's name and address before the crime. The court ruled that users voluntarily sharing their search data with third parties cannot expect it to remain private unless they've taken active steps to protect their browsing activity.

In the Guthrie case, the FBI originally believed that nothing had been preserved. The Google Nest doorbell camera had been disconnected, and Guthrie did not have an active subscription to the company. Under the free Google plan, any video that was made should have been deleted and overwritten within three to six hours, but a week later, the FBI and the county sheriff's office announced that they had gotten residual data located in back end systems. Residual data, that's an innocuous sounding phrase, but it suggests that there's a lot of information out there that's being preserved that people believe has been deleted.

[09:35:06]

And even that data is being collected when you no longer think a camera is operating. It should be noted that Google's privacy agreement, which most purchasers accept without reading, allows video to be captured when a device is offline it's possible the camera is sending out data even when the indicator light is not on.

Many people were alerted to the surprising and even dismaying technical features of doorbell cameras due to, of all things, a Super Bowl commercial promoting Amazon's Ring camera and a feature that can scan other footage in your neighborhood to help find a lost dog. It was supposed to be reassuring but for many it ended up being creepy.

Millions were spent to air that ad, and it created an immediate backlash. Ring had to damage control, stating that their product was used to follow animals, not people, and that buyers can opt out of that feature. Amid the privacy concerns, Ring has now canceled its partnership with Flock Safety, a company that uses surveillance technology to help law enforcement.

Though increasing these privacy fears are not new. The prize in artificial intelligence has brought many of them to light. But more than a decade ago, writing for "The New York Times," Charles Duhigg revealed that Target could determine whether a woman was likely pregnant even before she chose to share the news of the blessed event.

By tracking the purchase of approximately 25 specific items, such as unscented lotions, magnesium supplements, and large quantities of cotton balls, the retailer could identify expectant mothers and estimate their due dates with startling accuracy. What followed targeted coupons for diapers and cribs, among other products.

And one anecdote that I remember from that story, an irate dad in Minneapolis who visited his local store to confront the manager as to why his high school aged daughter was being mailed advertisements for maternity clothes, and then days later, dad admitted that after a difficult conversation Target was right. Their algorithms had recognized the physiological and behavioral shifts of pregnancy through her data trail.

There are numerous modern examples of invasive technology that people may not be aware of. For example, if you bought a new car recently, it's likely spying on you in the following sense, it's clocking how fast you're going, what's your location, how quickly you accelerate, how hard you hit your brakes and so on.

Often the automakers get your permission without you knowing it. To turn on the dashboard display, you've got to go through a series of consent forms that probably you haven't read, which include privacy policies. There have been numerous cases in recent years where auto companies have been criticized for collecting and sharing data.

Nissan, Toyota, GM, they shared driving habit information that they collected, and some car owners saw their insurance rates spike. Kia, Hyundai, had apps that kept location and driving data even after the accounts were deleted. And used cars from other automakers have been known to still make sensitive information available from previous owners. It was alleged that Tesla employees shared internal vehicle camera footage among themselves.

Sometimes lawsuits bring questionable activity to light. In recent years, Google has defended itself in a number of lawsuits for privacy violations. For instance, late last year, Google was ordered to pay $425 million for collecting data on people even after they turned off a tracking feature. The class action lawsuit covered 98 million users and 174 million Google devices. Lawyers had been seeking $31 billion because when you divide 425 million among 98 million, that's not a lot per person.

In another recent case showing privacy isn't as private as you might think, Google agreed to destroy billions of records of browsing activity of people using the supposedly private incognito mode. One more arena where there's been a lot of breach of technological data, modern politics.

The big scandal came several years ago. You'll remember there was an app, This Is Your Digital Life, that was asked a series of questions to create a user profile. As many as 87 million Facebook profiles were harvested without consent by the British consulting firm Cambridge Analytica. The data was utilized to help the campaigns of Ted Cruz and Donald Trump thought it was a scandal -- though it was a scandal, in many ways, the underlying activity has become business as usual.

Campaigns and parties regularly purchase voter information from states and various data brokers and share the information with other likeminded groups. If you give a donation, they know it. If you sign a petition, they know it. And they use this information to create targeted political advertising as well as more effective fundraising appeals.

So, we've seen how your data creates a profile. You know what else creates a profile? Your face. And that's being digitized and stored as well. Facial recognition technology is used all around the world. Some states have adopted legal limitations, but it's already out there in airports and stadiums and workplaces, even on the street.

[09:40:05]

Anywhere someone can put up a camera, they don't need to see your driver's license or credit card anymore to know who you are. Not that the system doesn't have a few kinks in it. There's the story of the woman known only as Sarah. She walked into a store in Britain and within a minute was told that she had to leave.

The store's facial recognition technology called Facewatch had mistakenly pegged her as a shoplifter. Her bag was checked and she was let out. They told her that she was banned from all stores using Facewatch.

She cried all the way home. Eventually, the error was corrected but how many more times will this happen? In any case, for today, we can be glad that technology has given us a break. Perhaps in the Guthrie kidnaping, and pray that it comes to a positive outcome. But tomorrow there are a lot of questions that we need to ask. Tough questions about how we deal with technology and privacy. Because if we don't put limits on the former, we might lose the latter.

I want to know what you think. Go to my Web site at Smerconish.com. Answer today's poll question. Do the benefits of technology for law enforcement outweigh any threats to individual privacy?

Joining me now, tech expert Joseph Steinberg, author of "Cybersecurity For Dummies." Professor, thank you for being here. What did I leave out of my summary? You're the expert. You were sitting there listening to my description.

JOSEPH STEINBERG, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY LECTURER: Well thank you for having me. I think you explained a lot of the problems. I think one of the issues that can be added is that people don't understand how much data is known and that is correlated. So, for example, an app that tracks someone's location can often determine or the provider of the app could determine if someone is having an affair, right? Because phones don't move when people are asleep. It's the only time of day that the phones don't move for significant periods of time.

If Mr. And Mrs. Phones are always seen to be at the same location at night, Mr. Smith is now -- his phone is seen across the country, Mrs. Smith and Mr. Jones' phones are seen being in the same hotel three times over that period that means something. And you know, that would just be one example using one piece of data, location that reveals a lot more about people's lives.

You mentioned the example of pregnancy. If someone's going to a clinic that, you know, provides chemotherapy the trackers have location. Know this person likely has cancer. So, there's a lot more data being learned about people than they probably realize. Even if they're saying, yes, I accept tracking location, they don't realize the consequence of that.

SMERCONISH: The blowback pertaining to that Super Bowl commercial. And now the end of that relationship that existed between Amazon Ring and the video partner suggests to me that people are increasingly aware of it and concerned about it, or at least we're concerned about it in that particular instance.

I know, you know the commercial. It's like, hey, isn't this cool? We can help you find your lost dog. And people were creeped out by it.

STEINBERG: So ironically, I had gotten an alert that my cameras had picked up a lost dog. Like -- it was that weekend, and I looked at the video and it actually wasn't a dog crossing the screen. It was a squirrel.

But whatever the case may be the function, right, it provides great value. A lot of these systems are double edged swords, right? They may invade our privacy, but they could save our dog.

To me one of the other concerns here is the fact that Amazon has this data may not concern me as much as the fact that what happens if a hacker obtains it? What happens if criminals obtain it and now know when somebody leaves their house every day, when they come back. If they have a dog, what time they walk the dog?

If government is obtaining things with warrants, you know, government doesn't have a perfect record of protecting data from hackers. What happens if criminals obtain this data? And I think there's a lot to talk about in that area as well.

SMERCONISH: OK. So we've assessed the problem. But to stick with this animal theme that you and I are working up, the horses left the barn. I mean, what can we do about it?

STEINBERG: I think it's -- it's not a matter of stopping to use it, right? We're not going back to typewriters and we're not going back to pen and paper for doing writing books and the like. OK, it's here to stay. The question is, are people aware of the risks and will they take precautions?

So I have some cameras inside the house. They have no power going to them unless I leave the house and turn them on. So, I don't rely on the security of the camera, because I don't trust the fact that when it's officially not recording it's not recording. If there's no power going to it, it has no battery, then it is not recording.

So there are precautions people can take to use the technologies and protect themselves more than might be explained when they, you know purchase it or license it.

SMERCONISH: A final thought. So I think I'm a bit hypocritical because I'm upset at the idea that all of my data is out there, so to speak.

[09:45:02]

And on the other hand I'm saying that guy on the porch at Nancy Guthrie's house, like yesterday, truly yesterday I stopped, got a cup of coffee and a bagel on the way to work, looked down at my phone. I was wearing dark glasses, a baseball hat, and had a scarf wrapped around my neck. But nevertheless, my iPhone knew that it was me and enabled me to make the purchase and I love that, right? So how do we sort this out where we want law enforcement to have these tools to get the bad guys off the street, and yet we want to protect our privacy?

STEINBERG: Well, that's why we have laws and rules and regulations, right? All of these technologies can be used for good or can be used for bad. And we need to make sure that we've put in rules and guardrails, let's call it, to prevent them from being abused. But not just from being abused. We don't want the data stored long term in places where it could be obtained by criminals either.

So there are certain data that even if it has great value to law enforcement, perhaps they can use it with a warrant. But then we don't want it sticking around in an environment where it could be lifted. So, we're going to need a lot more regulations in these areas.

But as you said, the technology is here to stay. It's got great benefits and none of us are going back to typewriters.

SMERCONISH: What's your answer to my poll question? Do the benefits for law enforcement outweigh risks to privacy?

STEINBERG: I believe they do if we properly regulate how these technologies are used by law enforcement. We don't want to become a surveillance state, but we can become a safer state and a state where the technology is used to improve our lives and improve our safety.

SMERCONISH: OK. Joseph Steinberg, I am recording that as a yes vote. Thank you for your time. Checking in now on social media reaction to today's program. Follow me on X, subscribe to my YouTube channel, maybe I'll be reading your comment.

I'm not sure how reviewing a doorbell camera video impedes on anyone's individual privacy. Law enforcement is only obtaining access to what it seems to be public information. I guess my response, Steve, would be to say that many of us are surprised, again, happily surprised in this instance, oh, good. They were able to get that video even then, the perception was she wasn't a subscriber. So, therefore it's lost.

At some level, I want whomever is responsible for this to be captured. But at some level I say, oh, what else is out there that our presumption is it's gone? I guess the answer is the working premise has to be nothing's ever gone.

Make sure you're voting. Professor, my guest, just voted on the poll question. What's your answer? Do the benefits of technology for law enforcement outweigh any threats to individual privacy?

Tracking breaking news out of Arizona. As you know, law enforcement operation two miles from Nancy Guthrie's home is over. Our crews have new information right after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:50:22]

SMERCONISH: More breaking news now. We just learned that an overnight law enforcement operation two miles from Nancy Guthrie's home ended with no arrests. Sources tell us that one person was detained, but police released him, saying they don't believe that he's connected to this crime. "Today" show co-anchor Savannah Guthrie's mother has now been missing for two full weeks.

Joining me now is CNN's Leigh Waldman with the very latest. So, Leigh, what do we know? What happened last night and what do we know at this moment in time?

LEIGH WALDMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Michael, two miles away from where we are right now at Nancy Guthrie's home, a lot of movement, law enforcement surging on that area. We know that we had crews there and they saw SWAT vehicles and forensic vehicles, the sheriff's department closing down those roads for four hours before they were reopened.

This wasn't the only location that they were investigating. There was a second location unknown at this point if it was at all related to the Nancy Guthrie case. But we know that we saw law enforcement investigating a Range Rover in that area.

But the bottom line here is it has been two full weeks Nancy Guthrie is not home. We have no one in custody. We have no named suspect at this point. The biggest lead we have to go on is that doorbell camera video that showed an armed and masked man outside of Nancy Guthrie's home.

The FBI has finally released a profile on that person, saying it's a man with a medium build between the height of 5'9" and 5'10". They've gotten thousands of tips, over 30,000 tips have come in since February 1st, since Nancy Guthrie disappeared. Within the hours after that doorbell camera being released, more than 5,000 tips have come in here. Now this community is being asked to examine all of their doorbell camera video, any surveillance video that they have in a two-mile long radius here, trying to determine where this person went, if they saw any suspicious vehicles, if they saw someone who was casing this home because experts have described this as a targeted kidnaping here. That's why there's this plea out to the community surrounding Nancy Guthrie's home to try and identify if they saw something that didn't belong or saw a vehicle that didn't necessarily belong.

We've seen constant law enforcement presence outside of Nancy Guthrie's home trying to make sure that this scene stays secure. But again, just one person questioned overnight and released. We're no closer at this point it seems to having an answer as to where Nancy is or to who the person responsible is.

The sheriff's department here put out a statement last night that said more information would be forthcoming, but that never came. They said that was at the direction of the FBI. At this point, Michael, still no press conference has been scheduled. We haven't had a press conference in more than a week now as this search for Nancy Guthrie continues.

SMERCONISH: I think that was the tell. I've been monitoring these events before coming on air and during the course of the hour wondering, will there be a presser? That would have been good news, perhaps, to announce a break in the case. And your point, Leigh, that there is no media avail, I think, is very telling.

Leigh Waldman, thank you so much for the report. We appreciate it. That kind of buttons up what's developed during the course of this hour. You still have time to vote on today's poll question at Smerconish.com. I'm asking, do the benefits of technology for law enforcement outweigh any threats to individual privacy?

Can't wait to see which way that goes. I have no idea. Subscribe to the newsletter while you're there. You'll get exclusive editorial cartoons from the likes of Steve Breen.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:57:07]

SMERCONISH: OK. There's the poll result so far, 29,052. It's a fair amount of voting, but look at the margin. Whoa. Do the benefits of technology for law enforcement outweigh any threats to individual privacy? By a slight margin, people are saying, no, they don't. The benefits don't.

They're more worried -- I'll say it more simply. They're more worried about privacy interests and think that needs to be taken into consideration in the context of all this use of technology by law enforcement. Interesting result. If you haven't voted, we'll leave it open. You can still vote.

OK. Social media reaction. Follow me on X, subscribe to my YouTube channel maybe I'll read yours. Oh, boy. Here we go again. Enough of the Guthrie kidnapping. You're just repeating the same all day every day -- no, that's not true. This is worse than the week long funeral CNN throws for deceased former presidents.

That's also bogus. Harry, Harry -- look at me, Harry. And let me try and disabuse all of you of the idea that this is all some cabal to gin up the Guthrie case for ratings. I wasn't planning on discussing the Guthrie case today. My wake up time -- my wake up time on a Saturday to host this program at 9:00 a.m. eastern is 4:00 a.m. How do I spend that time? Reading in, preparing, going over my notes, and monitoring the news.

My plan for today was to do the technology segment that we did did -- that we did do. That's tangentially related because of the Nest camera. I was going to talk about the SAVE Act. I was looking forward to a conversation with Christine Brennan about the Ukraine athlete who was precluded from wearing a helmet commemorating his fallen comrades, but instead it's been a broadcast news. You remember the movie? My morning and my team's morning has been a broadcast news like scramble trying to bring you the very latest because it seemed like there was a break in the Guthrie case. And sadly, it didn't pan out. But I make no apologies for how we've spent our time.

I mean, it's been a very vibrant, developing hour. And thank God for John Miller because he came in live and said, hey, guess what? It's not what law enforcement thought that it was. But the combination of a SWAT team executing a search warrant for which they would have needed probable cause, and all of this activity in the overnight, you know, we hope that that was going to be the outcome that people are praying for myself included.

So no, that's just a -- it's a bogus criticism. OK? One more if I have time. I think that I do. What do we have?

It is naive to believe privacy truly exists. Virtually everything about us is known and located in a database somewhere, says Paul.

Paul, I think that you're correct. My -- the professor, my guest, one of the things that I didn't bring out of him, but I know from my notes is that when his students expressed to him privacy concerns relative to their written work, his answer is to say, if you want to protect the privacy of your work, you better type it on a typewriter which, I think, sums up exactly where we are.

[10:00:12]

I love the privacy when it breaks, you know, a crime case like the one that we're following but I think the concerns expressed in the poll result are very realistic. OK. If you missed any of today's program, you can always listen anywhere you get your podcast. We thank you for watching and we will see you next week.