Case Law on Social Media and Digital Evidence

Case Law on Social Media and Digital Evidence

Estimated reading time: 9 minutes

In today’s digital age, social media and digital evidence are increasingly playing a crucial role in court cases. From criminal trials to civil disputes, digital footprints like social media posts, emails, and text messages have become pivotal in proving or disproving key facts. However, the use of such evidence presents unique challenges, including issues of authenticity, privacy, and admissibility. Understanding these complexities is essential for legal professionals navigating the evolving landscape of digital evidence and for anyone interested in how technology is reshaping the legal system.

Hassell v. Bird (2018)

Dawn Hassell, an attorney, sued Ava Bird for defamation after Bird posted a negative review about Hassell’s law firm on Yelp. Hassell sought a court order not only against Bird but also demanding Yelp to remove the defamatory review. Yelp was not named as a defendant in the original lawsuit and did not participate in the proceedings that led to the default judgment. 

The key issue before the court was whether Yelp, as a third party, could be compelled to remove content posted by its users under a court order. Yelp argued that the order to remove the reviews violated its rights under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA), which generally provides immunity to online platforms from liability for content posted by users. The California Court of Appeal had previously sided with Hassell, ruling that the order did not impose liability on Yelp but merely required it to comply with a court decision against Bird.

The California Supreme Court reversed this decision, holding that the order requiring Yelp to remove the reviews treated Yelp as the “publisher or speaker” of third-party content, which is precisely what Section 230 of the CDA prohibits. The Court emphasized that allowing such an order would undermine the broad immunity provided to online intermediaries under the CDA. This case highlighted the challenges of using digital evidence and social media in legal proceedings, particularly when it involves balancing defamation claims against the protections afforded to online platforms to foster open communication and the free exchange of ideas without fear of litigation.

United States v. Wilson (2021)

Google reported to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) that Luke Noel Wilson had uploaded four images, flagged by Google’s automated system as potentially being child pornography, to his email account. Although no Google employee had viewed the images, Google’s report was based on a hashing technology that matched these images to others previously identified as child pornography.

NCMEC forwarded the report to the San Diego Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force, where an officer viewed the email attachments without obtaining a warrant. Based on this viewing, the officer applied for search warrants for Wilson’s email account and residence, leading to the discovery of further incriminating evidence. Wilson moved to suppress the evidence obtained from his email and residence, arguing that the initial warrantless search of his email attachments violated his Fourth Amendment rights.

The Ninth Circuit vacated Wilson’s conviction and held that the government’s warrantless search of the email attachments was not justified under the private search doctrine. The court reasoned that the government exceeded the scope of Google’s private search by viewing the email attachments without a warrant. This expanded the privacy intrusion, as no private party had actually viewed the images. The decision highlighted challenges in applying traditional Fourth Amendment protections to digital evidence, emphasizing that automated processes like hash matching do not eliminate an individual’s reasonable expectation of privacy in their digital communications. The court underscored the need for clear boundaries when digital evidence and automated technologies intersect with constitutional rights, reflecting ongoing complexities in the digital age.

People v. Ware (2022)

Nicholas Hoskins was charged with conspiracy to commit murder, among other crimes. The prosecution argued that Hoskins was part of a two-year-long conspiracy involving multiple gang members to kill rivals. Although there was no direct evidence that Hoskins committed any acts of violence, the prosecution presented evidence of his gang membership, access to firearms, involvement in gang activities, and extensive social media activity that allegedly demonstrated his support for gang violence.

Social media evidence played a crucial role in the prosecution’s attempt to establish Hoskins’s intent and involvement in the conspiracy. Posts from Hoskins’s Facebook account, which depicted gang signs, threats, and references to gang rivalries, were used to argue that Hoskins had a specific intent to participate in the conspiracy. However, the case highlights the challenges of relying on social media evidence, as the content can often be ambiguous and open to multiple interpretations.

The Supreme Court ultimately found that the social media evidence presented was insufficient to support a conviction for conspiracy to commit murder. The court noted that while Hoskins’s posts might demonstrate gang affiliation and a general support for gang activities, they did not conclusively prove his intent to join a conspiracy to commit murder. The ruling emphasized the need for clearer, more direct evidence linking defendants to specific criminal intentions and activities, highlighting the complexities and limitations of using digital and social media evidence in criminal prosecutions.

Dealing with the Challenge of Digital Evidence

Handling digital evidence in court presents a unique set of challenges and requires specific strategies to ensure its effective use. As digital evidence becomes increasingly central to legal proceedings, understanding these complexities is vital for legal professionals.

Challenges of Digital Evidence

Authenticity and Integrity: One of the primary challenges of digital evidence is establishing its authenticity and integrity. Digital data, such as social media posts, emails, text messages, and digital photographs, can be easily altered, deleted, or fabricated. Courts require proof that the digital evidence presented has not been tampered with and accurately represents the original content. Establishing authenticity often involves demonstrating a clear chain of custody and using digital forensic techniques to verify metadata (such as timestamps and geolocation) and confirm that the evidence has remained unchanged since its collection.

Admissibility: For digital evidence to be admitted in court, it must be relevant, reliable, and not overly prejudicial. Additionally, the evidence must be obtained legally, following proper legal procedures. Evidence obtained through unlawful means, such as without proper warrants or in violation of privacy rights, may be deemed inadmissible. Courts also consider whether the digital evidence could unfairly bias a jury or be misinterpreted, especially if taken out of context or lacking appropriate explanatory information.

Privacy and Ethical Concerns: Privacy concerns are paramount when handling digital evidence, particularly when it involves personal or sensitive information. The collection and use of digital evidence must comply with privacy laws and constitutional protections, such as the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. Legal professionals must navigate these privacy issues carefully to avoid violating individuals’ rights and ensure that the evidence is ethically obtained and used.

Technological Complexity: The technological nature of digital evidence presents challenges in terms of understanding and explaining it to a judge or jury. Digital evidence often involves technical details that may be difficult for a layperson to understand. Legal professionals must find ways to simplify and effectively communicate the technical aspects of digital evidence to ensure that it is accurately interpreted and understood.

Strategies for Handling Digital Evidence

Forensic Expertise: Employing digital forensic experts is crucial for effectively handling digital evidence. These experts can help collect, analyze, and authenticate digital data, ensuring that it meets legal standards for admissibility. They can also provide expert testimony to explain the technical aspects of digital evidence to the court, helping to clarify its relevance and reliability.

Maintaining a Clear Chain of Custody: A clear and documented chain of custody is essential for proving the authenticity and integrity of digital evidence. Legal teams must meticulously document every step of the evidence collection, preservation, and transfer process, from the initial acquisition to its presentation in court. This documentation helps prevent claims of tampering or mishandling and supports the evidence’s credibility.

Using Advanced Technology Tools: Leveraging advanced technology tools and software for digital evidence management can help in preserving the integrity of the data and making it more accessible for analysis and presentation. These tools can automate parts of the evidence management process, reduce human error, and enhance the security of digital evidence.

Pre-Trial Preparation and Motions: Pre-trial motions allow attorneys to move to admit or exclude digital evidence based on its relevance, reliability, and potential prejudicial impact. Pre-trial preparation also involves anticipating the opposing counsel’s objections and preparing counterarguments to address challenges to the digital evidence.

Let Continuing Education of the Bar (CEB) Guide Your Practice

CEB offers comprehensive resources and updates that allow lawyers to stay informed about recent precedents and shifts in the legal landscape. CEB ensures that attorneys can maintain a thorough understanding of current legal standards and changes with its many online resources:

CEB Practitioner: 

CEB’s Practitioner Tool offers a vast array of case law, statutes, and practical guides across various legal fields. This tool streamlines research, enhances legal practice efficiency, and provides up-to-date information, making it invaluable for lawyers seeking quick and reliable legal insights. All Practitioner resources are written by California lawyers, for California lawyers. 

OnLAW Pro: 

CEB’s all-in-one legal research solution with authoritative practice guides, OnLAW Pro is written by California lawyers for California lawyers. All practice guides are fully integrated with CEB’s primary law research tool, allowing you to research California, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and U.S. Supreme Court case law, as well as California statutes and the California Constitution. OnLAW also comes with TrueCite®, CEB’s powerful case law citator. 

MCLE Solutions: 

CEB’s MCLE solutions, including CLE Passport and CEB’s CLE Compliance Package, provide a robust platform for California lawyers seeking to fulfill their CLE requirements. These solutions offer a diverse range of courses, covering various legal topics and practice areas. Designed for convenience and flexibility, the programs are available online, allowing attorneys to access high-quality, accredited educational content anytime, anywhere. CEB’s MCLE Solutions are an ideal blend of practicality and expertise, ensuring legal professionals stay informed, compliant, and at the forefront of their field.

Maximize the effectiveness of your legal practice by integrating CEB’s innovative tools into your work. Visit our website to explore these resources and begin transforming your approach to legal challenges. Stay informed and stay ahead with CEB.