People v. Harris
945 N.Y.S.2d 505
N.Y. City Crim. Ct.2012Background
- DA seeks Twitter records for @destructuremal (Sept 15–Dec 31, 2011) tied to Malcolm Harris OWS Brooklyn Bridge protest; Harris moves to quash subpoena; motion denied.
- Twitter subpoena issued Jan 26, 2012 for user data and Tweets; Twitter notified defendant and withheld pending court ruling.
- Harris seeks standing to challenge subpoena to third party; issues regarding intervention arise.
- Court analyzes standing principles (bank-record analogy) and finds no proprietary privacy interest in Tweets due to Twitter's Terms; court orders in camera review and evaluates SCA compliance.
- Court ultimately holds subpoena valid under SCA and CPL conditions, and orders Twitter to disclose materials for in camera review; defense rights preserved via in camera process.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to quash third-party subpoena | People asserts Harris lacks standing to challenge Twitter subpoena | Harris argues potential privacy interests and need to challenge through intervention | Harris has no standing to quash subpoena |
| Right to intervene in subpoena proceeding | People argues CPLR 1012/1013 do not confer intervention right | Harris seeks intervention to protect interests | Intervention not granted as a matter of right or discretionary basis |
| SCA applicability and validity of subpoena | Subpoena complies with SCA provisions and CPL requirements | N/A (People prevailing on statutory basis) | Subpoena valid and enforceable under 18 U.S.C. §2703; ordered disclosure with in camera review |
| Privacy safeguards and in camera review | Need for privacy balancing and review of materials | Twitter’s notice and potential privacy concerns acknowledged | In camera inspection to balance privacy; information not overbroad; production ordered for court review |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Doe, 96 A.D.2d 1018 (1st Dept 1983) (bank-record rationale; no standing to challenge third-party production)
- People v Di Raffaele, 55 N.Y.2d 234 (1982) (bank-record analogy; lack of proprietary interest in records)
- Matter of Norkin v Hoey, 181 A.D.2d 248 (1st Dept 1992) (privacy concerns in financial information; facial unfairness of disclosure)
- United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (1976) (bank records are business records of banks; no ownership by customer)
- United States v. Lifshitz, 369 F.3d 173 (2d Cir. 2004) (no reasonable expectation of privacy in internet postings reaching recipients)