The Matter of 381 Search Warrants Directed to Facebook Inc. v. New York County District Attorney's Office
29 N.Y.3d 231
| NY | 2017Background
- In July 2013 the New York County DA obtained 381 warrants under the federal Stored Communications Act (SCA) directing Facebook to produce subscriber information and user communications; warrants included gag/no-notice provisions.
- Facebook moved in Supreme Court to quash the warrants as overbroad and lacking particularity and separately sought the affidavit supporting the warrant; Supreme Court denied both motions and ordered compliance.
- Facebook appealed and sought a stay; Appellate Division denied the stay, Facebook complied, and later the Appellate Division dismissed Facebook’s appeals as taken from nonappealable orders.
- The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal solely on the question of appealability and affirmed the Appellate Division: appeals from orders denying motions to quash SCA warrants issued in a criminal proceeding are not authorized under the NY Criminal Procedure Law.
- The majority declined to reach merits (standing, Fourth Amendment, constitutionality of warrants, or whether §2703(d) authorizes a motion to quash in the first instance), leaving those issues open.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Facebook) | Defendant's Argument (State/DA) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are orders denying motions to quash SCA warrants issued in criminal proceedings appealable under NY law? | SCA warrants function like subpoenas; statute authorizes providers to move to quash under §2703(d), so normal appellate rights should apply. | Criminal Procedure Law governs appeals from orders in criminal proceedings; no CPL provision authorizes appeal from denial of motion to quash a warrant. | Orders denying motions to quash SCA warrants issued in a criminal proceeding are nonappealable under CPL; Appellate Division dismissal affirmed. |
| Does the SCA create a separate, appealable federal cause of action that preempts state appealability rules? | §2703(d) gives providers a statutory right to move to quash/modify; that collateral proceeding is final and appealable under federal practice. | The SCA does not expressly create an independent cause of action or an express federal right to appeal; state courts may apply neutral procedural rules. | Majority: No preemption; state appellate jurisdiction rules control; decline to treat §2703(d) as creating an appealable federal proceeding here. |
| Should SCA warrants be treated as subpoenas (civil) or as traditional search warrants (criminal) for jurisdictional purposes? | SCA warrants are similar to subpoenas (third-party production, no officer present, preserves provider interests) and thus may be civil/appealable. | SCA distinguishes warrants and subpoenas; warrants require probable cause and commence a criminal proceeding — appeals in criminal matters require statutory authorization. | Court: Despite execution similarities, SCA warrants are criminal in nature for jurisdictional purposes; they are not to be treated as subpoenas for appealability. |
| Does denial of Facebook’s motion to compel disclosure of the supporting affidavit present an appealable order? | Facebook sought the affidavit to evaluate probable cause and standing; non-disclosure frustrates meaningful review. | DA argued unsealing orders did not require immediate disclosure of affidavit; disclosure could harm prosecutions. | Denial of motion to compel the affidavit is likewise not appealable under CPL; alternative procedural avenues may exist. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Lovett, 25 N.Y.3d 1088 (establishing that no appeal lies from determinations in criminal proceedings unless statute provides)
- Matter of Police Benevolent Assn. of N.Y. State Police v. Gagliardi, 9 N.Y.2d 803 (order denying application to vacate search warrant is an unappealable order in a criminal case)
- Matter of Abrams (John Anonymous), 62 N.Y.2d 183 (orders resolving motions to quash subpoenas issued prior to criminal action are civil/special proceedings and appealable)
- United States v. Ryan, 402 U.S. 530 (general rule that denial of motion to quash subpoenas in litigation is interlocutory; appeals usually require contempt or narrow exceptions)
- Matter of Warrant to Search a Certain E-Mail Account Controlled & Maintained by Microsoft Corp., 829 F.3d 197 (Second Circuit: SCA distinguishes warrants and subpoenas; section language signals greater protections for warrants)
- Matter of B. T. Prods. v. Barr, 44 N.Y.2d 226 (writ of prohibition available in narrow circumstances where no adequate alternative remedy exists and warrant challenge goes to jurisdiction)