If the police may have cause to search your Facebook account using a warrant, the popular social media service won’t be able to help you – at least in New York state.
In a closely watched ruling this week, a New York state appeals court said that Facebook couldn’t contest a lower court decision that prevented it from challenging search warrants on behalf of its customers.
The controversy involves the Facebook records of 381 people in the New York City area who used the social media service back in 2013. The Facebook users reportedly were public officials, including police officers, who were under investigation for disability fraud.
The New York County district attorney’s office presented 93 pages of evidence to a state Supreme Court justice in July 2013 about why it had probable cause to obtain the Facebook records. Within a month, Facebook contested the decision.
Facebook argued that the search warrants were too broad and lacked particular information, violating the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment’s protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. New York County district attorney Cyrus R. Vance Jr., however, said since Facebook didn’t know the details of the investigation, it couldn’t argue that the warrants were too broad.
Justice Melissa C. Jackson denied Facebook’s requests in September 2013 and ordered the Facebook user’s records surrendered to investigators. Jackson also reinforced a gag order that prevented Facebook from telling the users that their records had been seized.
In June 2014, Facebook was back in court challenging a trial decision that agreed with Justice Jackson. The trial court said that New York County didn’t violate the Fourth Amendment rights of the Facebook users, and that Facebook couldn’t challenge the warrants, even though the company had been forced to gather information about its customers on the district attorney’s behalf.
Facebook again argued that the bulk warrants were too broad, because they compelled the company to turn over all of its records on the 381 users. “The Constitution doesn’t permit the government to seize and indefinitely retain such vast quantities of personal information – most of which can’t possibly be related to the crimes under investigation,” it said.
On Tuesday, the five-judge panel on the appeals court again sided with New York County.
Judge Dianne T. Renwick said for a unanimous court that Facebook didn’t have standing to sue on behalf of its customers about the search warrants, and the defendants in the cases had to challenge the warrants on their own.
“There is no constitutional or statutory right to challenge an allegedly defective warrant before it is executed,” Renwick said. The court also added that under current communications law, Facebook could challenge subpoenas and court orders, but not search warrants.
Renwick added that the court was concerned about bulk warrants, in general.
“Our holding today does not mean that we do not appreciate Facebook’s concerns about the scope of the bulk warrants issued here or about the district attorney’s alleged right to indefinitely retain the seized accounts of the uncharged Facebook users,” Renwick said. “Facebook users share more intimate personal information through their Facebook accounts than may be revealed through rummaging about one’s home. … These bulk warrants demanded ‘all’ communications in 24 broad categories from the 381 targeted accounts. Yet, of the 381 targeted Facebook user accounts only 62 were actually charged with any crime.”
But the appeals court reinforced that it was up to judges, as “guardians of our Constitution” to carefully consider probable cause when agreeing to warrant requests.
“Ultimately, to be fair and effective, the overall assessment of reasonableness requires the judge reviewing the warrant to carefully evaluate the need for each additional level of intrusion in the process of seizing evidence,” Renwick concluded.
Facebook had not announced a decision to appeal, as of today.
