No Social Media Privacy for Alleged Colorado Theater Shooter

Defendant James Eagan Holmes, the alleged Aurora, Colorado movie theater shooter, sought to suppress records obtained from two “dating” sites, Adultfriendfinder.com and Match.com (to be clear, the former is for “sex and swinger personals”).

TMZ.com apparently broke the story that Holmes, using the alias “classicjimbo,” had a picture of himself with red hair and a comment, “Will you visit me in prison?” homles

Some site photos and a CNN segment can be seen here.

Holmes’ lawyers argued to supress his profile records and subscription records.

The defense argued that the profile and subscription records were private.

As readers of this site well know, there is no reliable precedent that social media content is per se protected by privacy rights.

Applying the Katz “expectation of privacy” standard of 4th Amendment analysis, the court held that there was no societal expectation of privacy to the Defendant’s social media profile since it was accessible to the public.  In fact, the tagline “will you visit me in prison?” suggests that the writer anticipated it would be viewed by third parties.

Likewise, the subscription information amounted to content which the defendant voluntarily turned over to third parties (namely, those two sites).  This would include his billing and personal information as well as his IP address.

Unquestionably, the tagline about prison, if admissible, would be an indicator of forethought.  Likewise, the IP address information would tie the content back to the Defendant’s computer.

The November 7, 2013 Order Regarding Defendant’s Motion to Suppress Evidence: Records from Match.com and Adult Friend Finder.com (D-117) is here.

 

 

 

1st Amendment
Three Steps to Understanding Why Government Officials Cannot Block Users on Social Media (Knight First Amendment Institute et al. v. Donald J. Trump et al.)

There is some confusion about the recent Second Circuit opinion as to how, on a private social media platform, a government official, using a personal account, cannot block other users. The following three step process should lead just about everyone to understand the outcome. The case is Knight First Amendment …

Internet
When You See People Trying to Sue a Social Media Platform Because Their Account Was Suspended, It’s a Stunt (lessons of the CDA & Brittain v. Twitter)

A number of politicians, activists, and others who feel aggrieved after their Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and/or YouTube content has been removed or their accounts suspended have taken to the courts to sue the social media platforms with claims that they are being singled out, muzzled, or their free speech is …

Injunction
Casual Sexual Relationships and Florida’s Injunction Against Dating Violence (versus other injunctions)

When seeking an injunction in Florida to prevent someone from contacting you, pay careful attention to which statute best applies. This is the (unfortunate) lesson of Tyler Sumners v. Lindsey Thompson. After meeting on Craigslist, the parties had a four year consensual sexual relationship punctuated by periods of time when …