449 P.3d 353
Ariz. Ct. App.2019Background
- Home burglary: S.H. and J.H. had three iPads stolen; Apple records led police to a Brandon Griffith.
- Police investigation: Officers located Griffith, who admitted resetting devices for pay and recalled resetting several iPads for R.H.; he said he communicated with R.H. via Facebook.
- Facebook production: Pursuant to a warrant, Facebook produced a message from Griffith’s account (photo of an iPad matching a stolen-device serial number) and a search-history log showing searches for the victims.
- Trial objection: Griffith argued the Facebook records were inadmissible hearsay and unauthenticated because the State lacked a Facebook custodian’s testimony or Rule 902(11) certification.
- Lower court ruling: The superior court admitted the Facebook message and search log after a detective testified she retrieved them via Facebook’s law-enforcement portal; Griffith appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Facebook message was admissible | State: message is a business record or otherwise admissible and shows Griffith possessed/sold the iPad | Griffith: message is hearsay and unauthenticated; no Facebook custodian or Rule 902(11) certification | Admission affirmed—message not admissible under Rule 803(6) as a business record, but admissible as a party-opponent statement under Rules 801(d)(2) and 901 because extrinsic evidence permitted reasonable jury inference Griffith authored it |
| Whether Facebook search-history log was admissible | State: log shows Griffith searched victims and thus knew their identities; admissible as evidence he authored the searches | Griffith: same hearsay/authentication objections as to the message | Admission affirmed—search log treated like other social-media content; sufficient circumstantial evidence supported authentication that Griffith made the searches |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Browne, 834 F.3d 403 (3d Cir. 2016) (distinguishes technical platform records from substantive user communications; social-media custodians cannot verify content authorship)
- United States v. Farrad, 895 F.3d 859 (6th Cir. 2018) (social-media content may be admissible if authenticated; cautions against treating online evidence differently from physical evidence)
- United States v. Vayner, 769 F.3d 125 (2d Cir. 2014) (authentication requires some evidence that an item actually emanated from the defendant)
- State v. Fell, 242 Ariz. 134 (App. 2017) (extrinsic evidence can suffice to authenticate social-media statements; authorship need not be proved definitively)
- State v. King, 213 Ariz. 632 (App. 2006) (standard of review for evidentiary rulings is abuse of discretion)
- State v. Winegardner, 243 Ariz. 482 (2018) (Arizona courts may look to federal decisions for guidance on social-media evidence)