Blogs

Facebook Claims NY Court Violated the Constitution with Sweeping Search Warrants

07.01.14

Facebook filed a brief that states that the “Fourth Amendment does not permit the Government to seize, examine, and keep indefinitely the private messages, photographs, videos, and other communications of nearly 400 people—the vast majority of whom will never know that the Government has obtained and continues to possess their personal information.” Computerworld reported that Facebook has been fighting July 2013:

…a set of sweeping search warrants issued by the Supreme Court for New York County that demanded that it turn over to law enforcement nearly all data from the accounts of the 381 people, including photos, private messages and other information.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation supports Facebook and commented about the New York District Attorney’s search warrants which were supported by a 93 page “affidavit about a long-term investigation into a massive scheme to defraud and other related crimes”:

…the vast majority of the target, the information was not relevant to any crime. Only 62 people were ultimately charged

On June 20, 2014 Facebook filed its brief under seal in the New York State Supreme Court Appellate Division in the case of IN RE 381 SEARCH WARRANTS DIRECTED TO FACEBOOK, INC. AND DATED JULY 23, 2013 asking the court:

…for the return or destruction of the data as well as a ruling on whether the bulk warrants violated the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and other laws.

The Facebook brief also claims that the First Amendment does not “permit the Government to forbid Facebook from ever disclosing what it has been compelled to do—even after the Government has concluded its investigation.”

This case could eventually get to the Supreme Court, and impact all Social Media content.

The publications contained in this site do not constitute legal advice. Legal advice can only be given with knowledge of the client's specific facts. By putting these publications on our website we do not intend to create a lawyer-client relationship with the user. Materials may not reflect the most current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. This information should in no way be taken as an indication of future results.

Search Tips:

You may use the wildcard symbol (*) as a root expander.  A search for "anti*" will find not only "anti", but also "anti-trust", "antique", etc.

Entering two terms together in a search field will behave as though an "OR" is being used.  For example, entering "Antique Motorcars" as a Client Name search will find results with either word in the Client Name.

Operators

AND and OR may be used in a search.  Note: they must be capitalized, e.g., "Project AND Finance." 

The + and - sign operators may be used.  The + sign indicates that the term immediately following is required, while the - sign indicates to omit results that contain that term. E.g., "+real -estate" says results must have "real" but not "estate".

To perform an exact phrase search, surround your search phrase with quotation marks.  For example, "Project Finance".

Searches are not case sensitive.

back to top