Court of Appeals State of New York

To be Argued by: THOMAS H. DUPREE, JR. (Time Requested: 30 Minutes) APL-2015-00318 New York County Clerk's Index Nos. 30207/13 and 30178/14

Court of Appeals

of the

State of New York

In re 381 Search Warrants Directed to Facebook, Inc. and Dated July 23, 2013 FACEBOOK, INC., Appellant, ? against ?

NEW YORK COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Respondent.

??????????????????????????????? In the Matter of the Motion to Compel Disclosure of the Supporting Affidavit Relating to Certain Search Warrants Directed to Facebook, Inc., Dated July 23, 2013

FACEBOOK, INC., Appellant,

? against ? NEW YORK COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE,

Respondent.

BRIEF OF APPELLANT

Of Counsel: ORIN SNYDER ALEXANDER H. SOUTHWELL THOMAS H. DUPREE, JR. (admitted pro hac vice) GABRIEL K. GILLETT

February 16, 2016

GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP Attorneys for Appellant 200 Park Avenue New York, New York 10166 Tel.: (212) 351-4000 Fax: (212) 351-4035

CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Pursuant to 22 NYCRR ? 500.1(f), Appellant Facebook, Inc. states that it is a publicly traded corporation, has no corporate parent, and has the following significant subsidiaries: ? Andale, Inc. (Delaware) ? Edge Network Services Limited (Ireland) ? Facebook Ireland Holdings Limited (Ireland) ? Facebook Ireland Limited (Ireland) ? Facebook Operations, LLC (Delaware) ? Oculus VR, LLC (Delaware) ? Parse, LLC (Delaware) ? Pinnacle Sweden AB (Sweden) ? Siculus, LLC (Delaware) ? Vitesse, LLC (Delaware) ? WhatsApp Inc. (Delaware)

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................1 QUESTIONS PRESENTED......................................................................................7 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION..........................................................................8 PRESERVATION OF ERROR .................................................................................8 STATEMENT OF FACTS ........................................................................................9 I. Facebook..........................................................................................................9 II. The Bulk Warrants.........................................................................................12 III. The Trial Court Denies Facebook's Motion To Quash. ................................14 IV. The Government Indicts A Small Fraction Of Targeted Facebook

Users, And The Court Unseals The Investigator's Affidavit. .......................15 V. The Appellate Division Dismisses Facebook's Appeals...............................17 ARGUMENT ...........................................................................................................18 I. FACEBOOK HAS A RIGHT TO CHALLENGE THE BULK

WARRANTS. ................................................................................................19 A. Both the Stored Communications Act and New York Law

Allow Challenges to SCA Warrants. ..................................................20 1. Facebook Has a Right to Challenge the Warrants Under

the Stored Communications Act. ..............................................20 2. Facebook Also Has a Right to Challenge the Warrants

Under New York Law...............................................................25 B. Facebook Has Standing to Defend the Constitutional Rights of

Its Users. ..............................................................................................26

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page

C. The Trial Court's Order Is Appealable. ..............................................32 II. THE BULK WARRANTS ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL. ........................37

A. The Bulk Warrants Violate the Fourth Amendment Because They Are Overbroad and Lack Sufficient Particularity. .....................37 1. The Fourth Amendment Applies With Strong Force in the Digital Age. .........................................................................37 2. The Bulk Warrants Violate the Fourth Amendment.................41

B. The Gag Provisions Violate the Stored Communications Act and the First Amendment. ...................................................................46 1. The Gag Provisions Violate the Stored Communications Act. ...........................................................................................46 2. The Gag Provisions Violate the First Amendment...................47

III. THE GOVERNMENT HAS IMPROPERLY WITHHELD THE INVESTIGATOR'S AFFIDAVIT PURPORTEDLY JUSTIFYING THE BULK WARRANTS. ...........................................................................49

CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................54

iii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page(s)

Cases

Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009) .............................................................................................38

Associated Press v. Bell, 128 A.D.2d 59 (1st Dep't 1987), aff'd, 70 N.Y.2d 32 (1987)..............................53

Butterworth v. Smith, 494 U.S. 624 (1990) .............................................................................................48

Camara v. Mun. Court of S.F., 387 U.S. 523 (1967) .............................................................................................38

Church of Scientology of Cal. v. United States, 506 U.S. 9 (1992) .................................................................................................36

Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190 (1976) .............................................................................................29

Cunningham v. Nadjari, 39 N.Y.2d 314 (1976).................................................................................... 33, 36

Danco Labs. v. Chem. Works of Gedeon Richter, 274 A.D.2d 1 (1st Dep't 2000)................................................................ 50, 52, 53

Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs., 528 U.S. 167 (2000) .............................................................................................37

Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court for Norfolk Cnty., 457 U.S. 596 (1982) ...................................................................................... 36, 49

Groh v. Ramirez, 540 U.S. 551 (2004) .............................................................................................45

In re Appeal of Application for Search Warrant, 71 A.3d 1158 (Vt. 2012).......................................................................................40

iv

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download