October 16, 2009 Evidence

Web photos inadmissible as evidence in case against deer hunter

State v. Ness, — N.W.2d —-, 2009 WL 3296676 (N.D. Oct. 15, 2009)

Another day, another state supreme court decision about whether web-found evidence is admissible. Yesterday our discussion was about a MySpace posting in a murder trial. (The evidence in that case was admissible.) Today it’s about pictures from the Internet in a case against a hunter accused of failing to tag the deer he had shot. (The evidence in this case was inadmissible.)

Defendant Ness was charged with violating a proclamation of the governor of North Dakota (which has the force of law) requiring hunters to “immediately” place a state-issued tag on all deer killed. At trial, his attorney cross examined the game warden who issued the citation to Ness while Ness was cutting the deer up in his front yard. In connection with this cross examination, Ness’s lawyer tried to introduce photos from the web of other hunters, to shed light on what the word “immediately” meant.

The trial court excluded the photos of other hunters. Ness was found guilty and sought review with the North Dakota Supreme Court. On appeal, the court agreed that the photos were properly excluded.

Ness argued that keeping the photos away from the jury during the game warden’s cross examination violated his constitutional right to confront his accuser. The Supreme Court rejected that argument, however, finding that the pictures of other hunters with other animals at other times were irrelevant to the present matter and would not help the jury determine whether the law was broken in this case.

Deer photo courtesy Flickr user law_keven under this Creative Commons license.

October 15, 2009 Evidence

MySpace posting was not improper character evidence at murder trial

Clark v. State, No. 43S00-0810-CR-575 (Ind. October 15, 2009). [Download the opinion]

Defendant Clark killed his girlfriend’s two-year-old daughter. At his murder trial, the prosecution introduced the following post Clark had made to his MySpace page:

Society labels me as an outlaw and criminal and sees more and more everyday how many of the people, while growing up, and those who judge me, are dishonest and dishonorable. Note, in one aspect I’m glad to say I have helped you people in my past who have done something and achieved on the other hand, I’m sad to see so many people who have nowhere. to those people I say, if I can do it and get away. Bullshit. And with all my obstacles, why the fuck can’t you.

Clark was convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison. He sought review with the Indiana Supreme Court. On appeal, the court affirmed the conviction.

One of the arguments Clark raised on appeal was that the trial court committed error when it allowed the jury to consider the MySpace posting. He claimed that it was improper character evidence under Indiana Rule of Evidence 404(b) which provides in relevant part:

Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.

The Supreme Court held that Rule 404(b) did not apply because “[i]t was Clark’s words and not his deeds that were at issue.” The posting was “solely evidence of [Clark’s] own statements, not of prior criminal acts.”

Moreover, Clark had made an issue of his character when he testified in his own defense. One theme of his testimony was that he had acted recklessly, and that had he intended to kill the victim he would have done more to conceal the crime. The court held that the bravado exhibited in the MySpace posting (in conjunction with a statement Clark had made to a detective upon his arrest, namely, “I will fucking kick your ass. I will send the Hell’s Angels to kill you. Fuck it. It’s only a C felony. I can beat this.”) was probative in that it countered his argument of “mere” recklessness.

October 11, 2009 Contracts

Web host did not breach contract by terminating rude customer

Mehmet v. Add2net, Inc., — N.Y.S.2d —-, 2009 WL 3199876 (N.Y.A.D. 1 Dept. October 8, 2009)

Plaintiff website operator didn’t pay his monthly hosting fees on time. He called the hosting company and said he’d be sending a check, but in the meantime the web host exercised its right under the hosting agreement to suspend Plaintiff’s account for nonpayment. Plaintiff called and left a nasty voicemail, using an obscene word to threaten to sue the hosting company if his website was not reactivated.

In response to this angry voice mail, the web host terminated Plaintiff’s account. He sued for breach of contract. The web host moved to dismiss at the trial court level and the court granted the motion. Plaintiff sought review. On appeal, the court affirmed the dismissal.

Of particular importance was a provision in the hosting agreement that incorporated by reference an Acceptable Use Policy (AUP), and provided that any breach of that policy would be grounds for suspension or termination of plaintiff’s account. Under the AUP, plaintiff agreed “not to abuse whether verbally or physically or whether in person, via email or telephone or otherwise … any employee or contractor of [defendant].”

The nonpayment coupled with this violation of the web hosting acceptable use policy undercut Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim.

October 7, 2009 Privacy, Uncategorized

Group sex photos case heads to trial

Peterson v. Moldofsky, No. 07-2603, 2009 WL 3126229 (D.Kan. September 29, 2009)

Defendant took pictures of his ex-girlfriend “engaged in various sex acts with two other people.” Later he emailed some of the photos to his ex-girlfriend’s mother, ex-husband, ex-in laws, boss and co-workers.

The ex-girlfriend sued for intentional infliction of emotional distress and invasion of privacy. Defendant moved for summary judgment. The court denied the motion in large part.

Infliction of emotional distress

Defendant argued that the court should toss the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim because Plaintiff ex-girlfriend failed to show that Defendant’s conduct was sufficiently extreme and outrageous, and that the alleged distress exceeded what a reasonable person would experience in the circumstances.

The court rejected Defendant’s arguments. It found that an average citizen would think emailing photos of a person engaged in a manage a trois to one of the participants’ mother, among others, was outrageous. Moreover, Plaintiff’s distress was shown to be severe, as she had to get counseling. It sounds as if the court would have found it severe enough even without the counseling — Defendant’s conduct was “so shocking and outrageous as to give rise to an inference of severe emotional distress.”

Invasion of privacy

Plaintiff claimed two forms of invasion of privacy — intrusion upon seclusion and publication of private facts. The court held she had presented enough facts for the latter but not the former.

The court granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment as to intrusion upon seclusion because no intrusion occurred. Plaintiff knew Defendant was there taking pictures of the activities. The court rejected Plaintiff’s argument that publication of the no doubt intimate photos constituted intrusion. It held that the disclosure of properly obtained information could not give rise to the claim.

But as to the argument that emailing the photos unlawfully publicized private facts, the court sided with Plaintiff. Defendant had argued that emailing the photos to only a half dozen or so people did not amount to “publication,” which is one of the elements of the tort. He pointed to Comment “a” of the Restatement (Second) of Torts §652D which says that “it is not an invasion of the right of privacy to communicate a fact . . . to a single person, or even to a small group of people.”

In rejecting this argument, the court engaged in what some might characterize as “Internet exceptionalism,” — applying the law in response to a perceived substantial difference between online and offline communication. The court observed that “the Internet enables its users to ‘quickly and inexpensively’ surmount the barriers to generating publicity that were inherent in the traditional forms of communication.” Finding this distinction to be significant, the court held that distribution of the photos even to a small group of people through the private means of electronic mail could be considered a “publication” for purposes of the tort of invasion of privacy.

Threesome photo courtesy Flickr user curgoth under this Creative Commons license.

September 21, 2009 Computer Crime, Evidence

MySpace drinkin’ photos causing real life problems again

Last time it was probation being revoked. This time it’s children being taken away. A recent Texas case shows how irresponsible social media use can have some unpleasant consequences.

Mann v. Department of Family and Protective Services, 2009 WL 2961396 (Tex. App. September 17, 2009)

Appellant had her baby taken away by state protective services. She sought review with the court claiming, among other things, that the state had presented “no evidence that [Appellant] engaged in endangering conduct.”

Woo hoo

The court found otherwise, agreeing with the lower court that Appellant had endangered the child. Among the evidence it considered were photos from Appellant’s MySpace account with the following captions, unedited to preserve their original ebullience:

 

  • At Ashley House Dranking it Up
  • Me Helping Ashley Stand Up, Were Both Drunk
  • Me Dancing my ass off, I can dance when I drunk
  • Yall see how much we Dranked plus the one’s that droped on the floor
  • We were all fucked up

Oh, by the way, Appellant was under 21.

The court held that “[t]his evidence could lead a reasonable factfinder to firmly believe that appellant engaged in underage drinking on these two occasions, despite knowing that she was under the legal drinking age.”

Photo courtesy Flickr user Mercury98 under this Creative Commons license.

September 11, 2009 Contracts, Copyright

Do Twitter’s new terms of service forsake third party developers?

Twitter announced its new Terms of Service yesterday. One big issue deals with copyright ownership. This is one of the perennial questions in the law of social media: “who owns the user-created content?” Twitter nods to this issue when it states that “Twitter is allowed to ‘use, copy, reproduce, process, adapt, modify, publish, transmit, display and distribute’ your tweets because that’s what we do. However, they are your tweets and they belong to you.”

That’s all well and good. And by not being too grabby, Twitter avoids stirring up a brouhaha like Facebook did earlier this year for a little while when it claimed a very broad license in users’ content. In that situation, some pointed out that Facebook could use your content forever, even after you deleted your account. No doubt Twitter was motivated by an aversion to controversy of this sort when it decided to not claim a perpetual license.

But is Twitter being too cautious? The license it claims in the new terms of service does not specify a duration. That’s user-friendly, because such a license is probably terminable at will by the user. Under cases like Walthal v. Rusk, 172 F.3d 481 (7th Cir. 1999), Twitter would no longer have the authority to use, copy, reproduce, etc. the tweets of a user that no longer permitted such use be made. Deleting one’s account would be a good indication that such a license was being revoked. And the user could follow up with an express statement to Twitter that the license no longer exists.

Still all well and good. But let’s look at the “ecosystem” that has been nourished by the Twitter API, and which Twitter bolsters in its new terms of service. (“We encourage and permit broad re-use of Content. The Twitter API exists to enable this.”)

Third party developers can build apps that, among other things, cache users’ Tweets and make them available for mashup, organization, etc. and redisplay. These acts by the third party developer are an exercise of rights of the copyright holder, i.e., the individual Twitter user. The terms of service allow Twitter to sublicense these rights to the third party developer, so there is no problem so long as the individual Twitter user is under the terms of service.

What happens, though, in the situation we were just discussing where the individual user revokes the license to Twitter? These cached copies out there in the possession of third party developers all of a sudden become unauthorized, because Twitter no longer has the sublicensable right to allow the tweets’ copying and redistribution by others.

In such a situation, are third party developers who continue to display the content left blowing in the wind, as infringers of erstwhile Twitter users’ copyright rights?

Notice sign photo courtesy Flickr user szlea under this Creative Commons license.

August 31, 2009 Privacy

Email snooping can be intrusion upon seclusion

Analysis could also affect liability of enterprises using cloud computing technologies.

Steinbach v. Village of Forest Park, No. 06-4215, 2009 WL 2605283 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 25, 2009)

Local elected official Steinbach had an email account that was issued by the municipality. Third party Hostway provided the technology for the account. Steinbach logged in to her Hostway webmail account and noticed eleven messages from constituents had been forwarded by someone else to her political rival.

Steinbach sued the municipality, her political rival and an IT professional employed by the municipality. She brought numerous claims, including violation of the Federal Wiretap Act, the Stored Communications Act, and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. She also brought a claim under Illinois common law for intrusion upon seclusion, and the court’s treatment of this claim is of particular interest.

The defendant IT professional moved to dismiss the intrusion upon seclusion claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)(for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted). The court denied the motion.

The court looked to the case of Busse v. Motorola, Inc., 813 N.E.2d 1013 (Ill.App. 1st. Dist. 2004) for the elements of the tort of intrusion upon seclusion. These elements are:

  • defendant committed an unauthorized prying into the plaintiff’s seclusion;
  • the intrusion would be highly offensive to the reasonable person;
  • the matter intruded upon was private; and
  • the intrusion caused the plaintiff to suffer.

The defendant presented three arguments as to why the claim should fail, but the court rejected each of these. First, the defendant argued that the facts allegedly intruded upon were not inherently private facts such as plaintiff’s financial, medical or sexual life, or otherwise of an intimate personal nature. Whether the emails were actually private, the court held, was a matter of fact that could not be determined at the motion to dismiss stage. Plaintiff’s claim that emails from her constituents were private was not unreasonable.

The defendant next argued that Steinbach had not kept the facts in the email messages private. But the court soundly rejected this argument, stating that the defendant failed to explain how Steinbach displayed anything openly. Plaintiff asserted that she had an expectation of privacy in her email, and defendant cited no authority to the contrary.

Finally, the defendant argued that the intrusion was authorized, looking to language in the Federal Wiretap Act and the Stored Communications Act that states there is no violation when the provider of an electronic communication services intercepts or accesses the information. The court rejected this argument, finding that even though the municipality provided the email address to Steinbach, Hostway was the actual provider. The alleged invasion, therefore, was not authorized by statute.

The court’s analysis on this third point could have broader implications as more companies turn to cloud computing services rather than hosting those services in-house. In situations where an employer with an in-house provided system has no policy getting the employee’s consent to employer access to electronic communications on the system, the employer – as provider of the system – could plausibly argue that such access would be authorized nonetheless. But with the job of providing the services being delegated to a third party, as in the case of a cloud-hosted technology, the scope of this exclusion from liability is narrowed.

Email ribbon photo courtesy Flickr user Mzelle Biscotte under this Creative Commons License

August 13, 2009 Computer Crime, First Amendment

Is banning sex offenders from social networking sites constitutional?

Mashable and others are reporting on a law that the governor of Illinois signed earlier this week, banning use of social networking sites by convicted sex offenders. The big criticism of that law seems to be that it may be unconstitutional. That question is worth thinking about.

The most likely constitutional challenge will be that the law is too broad. For a law to prohibit certain speech and not run afoul of the First Amendment, it must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest. Clearly there is a compelling government interest in protecting children and other victims of sex crimes from perpetrators. So the real analysis comes from examining whether this restriction on the use of social networking sites is narrowly tailored to serve that purpose.

What the law says

Let’s back up and take a look at what the new law actually says. In short, it requires any sex offender that is on parole, supervised release, probation, conditional release or court supervision to “refrain from accessing or using a social networking website.” Note that the restriction is not a lifetime ban, but just a restriction to be in effect during the sentence.

There are a number of terms to unpack.

There is a prohibition on “accessing” and “using.” This is kind of redundant, because the statute defines “access” as “to use, instruct, communicate with, store data in, retrieve or intercept data from, or otherwise utilize any services of a computer.” (The redundant part comes from the fact that to “use” is part of the definition of “access”.)

The most important definition for our discussion is that of a “social networking website”:

“Social networking website” means an Internet website containing profile web pages of the members of the website that include the names or nicknames of such members, photographs placed on the profile web pages by such members, or any other personal or personally identifying information about such members and links to other profile web pages on social networking websites of friends or associates of such members that can be accessed by other members or visitors to the website. A social networking website provides members of or visitors to such website the ability to leave messages or comments on the profile web page that are visible to all or some visitors to the profile web page and may also include a form of electronic mail for members of the social networking website.

This is a tortured definition plagued by a couple of runon sentences, but in essence, a social networking website, as defined under Illinois law, is any site that has:

  • profile pages that contain
  • identifying information such as names, usernames or photographs, and which are
  • linked to other profile pages of “friends or associates” that can be
  • accessed by other members or visitors to the website, and
  • provides the ability to leave messages or comments on the profile visible to others

In a rather strange style for legislative writing, the definition says that a social networking site “may also include” direct messaging. That’s weird to say in a statute — does it have to include direct messaging to be considered a social networking site? One could argue either way. So that part of the definition does nothing to assist.

How one can run afoul of the law

By merely accessing a social networking site, a sex offender violates this new law. He or she doesn’t have to actually use any of the social networking functionality, all that is necessary is to merely retrieve data from the computer on which the site is stored. Clearly it would be verboten to use MySpace and Facebook. But also off limits would be LinkedIn and Focus. Flickr? YouTube? No way, even if the offender is just going there to passively view content for completely benign purposes.

The constitutional problem

Remember, the law has to be narrowly tailored to meet the compelling state interest. That means that if there is some less restrictive alternative than the law as enacted to fix the problem, the law is too broad and therefore unconstitutional. It would certainly seem that there is something less restrictive than a prohibition on merely visiting a website with social media functionality. A good start would be more aggressively targeting the actual online conduct that might put people at risk — actual online interaction through social media.

But it is far from clear. The Seventh Circuit (which is the federal appellate court that would hear a constitutional challenge to an Illinois law) has held that a convicted sex offender can lawfully be prohibited from visiting a city park. See Doe v. City of Lafayette, 377 F.3d 757 (7th. Cir. 2004). In a city park there is plenty of conduct one can undertake which is not unlawful or does not threaten others. And the court held that restriction was not unconstitutional. There is plenty of conduct one can engage in on a “social networking site” as defined by the statute that is not harmful as well.

Is the comparison between a city park and a social networking site justified?

Keyboard image courtesy Flickr user striatic under this Creative Commons License.

August 12, 2009 Computer Crime, Evidence

Conviction for sending intimidating MySpace message overturned

Marshall v. State, 2009 WL 2243467 (Ind. App. July 28, 2009)

Gotta love the facts of this case from my home state of Indiana.

Marshall and Goodman traded cars with one another, but that deal went sour. Marshall then got into an altercation with Goodman’s mother (named Lee) and Marshall was arrested. She was also ordered to have no contact with either Goodman or Lee. Three days after her arrest, Marshall sent the following (redacted) private message through MySpace to Goodman:

Dont think that you are gonna get away from this s***. you can’t hide forever and one of these days when you are out and about … you know thy aint going to pin nothing on me. Cant prove s***. aint gonna and I am just waiting for that day. You want a war? ? ? Your gonna get it now f*****. I don’t know YET who told you the s*** in my blogs or was feedin you info on me but you can rest assured that I am gonna f*** them uptoo when I found out. And I WILL find out. The s*** aint done and you better know that. Its only a matter of time.

The b**** you know I can be.

(Ed. note: stay classy, Ms. Marshall!)

Based on this message, Marshall was convicted of felony intimidation against Lee. The prosecution had argued that Marshall committed this crime by communicating a threat to knowingly injure Lee, with the intent that Lee be placed in fear of retaliation for calling the police.

Marshall sought review of her conviction with the Indiana Court of Appeals. On appeal, the court reversed the conviction.

The court held that the prosecution failed to prove its allegations of intimidation against Lee, because the message was sent to Goodman’s ( and not Lee’s) MySpace account. Even though an intimidating communication may be indirect, the state had to prove that Marshall must have known or had reason to know that her communication would reach Lee. In this case, there was no such proof.

The MySpace message was not addressed to Lee, nor was she mentioned by name. Accordingly, there was no evidence that Marshall knew or had reason to know that Goodman would show the message to his mother.

Photo courtesy Flickr user subewl under this Creative Commons license.

Scroll to top