Technology in Criminal Cases
Transcript of Technology in Criminal Cases
10/11/2016
1
Technology inCriminal Cases
2016 Criminal Law Conference October 13-14, 2016
CH. 3 Page
10/11/2016
2
Riley v. California, 134 S.Ct. 2473 (2014).
“Cell phones differ in both a quantitative and aqualitative sense from other objects that mightbe kept on an arrestee’s person. . . Many ofthese devices are in fact minicomputers thatalso happen to have the capacity to be used as atelephone.”
Evan’s Law
2016 Criminal Law Conference October 13-14, 2016
CH. 3 Page
10/11/2016
3
The Internet of Things
The Internet of Things
The Internet of Things
2016 Criminal Law Conference October 13-14, 2016
CH. 3 Page
10/11/2016
4
Internet Protocol (IP)
24.73.102.186
IPv6
3FFE:F200:0234:AB00:0123:4567:8901:ABCD
2016 Criminal Law Conference October 13-14, 2016
CH. 3 Page
10/11/2016
5
Social Media
2016 Criminal Law Conference October 13-14, 2016
CH. 3 Page
10/11/2016
6
Social Media
Social Media
Social Media
2016 Criminal Law Conference October 13-14, 2016
CH. 3 Page
10/11/2016
7
Social Media
Social Media
Social Media
2016 Criminal Law Conference October 13-14, 2016
CH. 3 Page
10/11/2016
8
Social Media
Social Media
Social Media
2016 Criminal Law Conference October 13-14, 2016
CH. 3 Page
10/11/2016
9
Social Media
Social MediaDanziger Bridge shootings
“The government additionally asserts . . . that nojuror or potential juror was actually prejudiced byany pretrial publicity . . . [showing of prejudice isnot necessary] where the integrity of theproceeding is so infected with a pattern ofdeliberate and especially egregious prosecutorialmisconduct, such that due process may be deniedby the government’s failure to obey its ownregulations, and/or where a miscarriage of justiceoccurs.”
United States v. Bowen, 969 F.Supp.2d 546, 619 (E.D. La. 2013).
Social Media
2016 Criminal Law Conference October 13-14, 2016
CH. 3 Page
10/11/2016
10
Social Media“Defendant argues that social media postings bythe district court judge demonstrate judicial bias.During the pendency of the trial, the district courtjudge posted to his election campaign Facebookpage discussions of his role in the case and hisopinion of the outcome. Although we need notdecide this issue because we reverse onconfrontation grounds, we take this opportunity todiscuss our concerns over the use of social mediaby members of our judiciary.”
State v. Thomas, 376 P.3d 184, 198 (N.M. 2016).
Social Media
Social Media
Chace v. Loisel, 170 So.3d 802 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 2014) (Motion to disqualify should have been granted where judge sent friend request to litigant).
Youkers v. State, 400 S.W.3d 200 (Tex.Ct.App. 2013) (Recusal not warranted where trial judge and victim’s father were Facebook friends).
Domville v. State, 103 So.3d 184 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 2013) (Judge should have been disqualified because he was Facebook friends with prosecutor).
2016 Criminal Law Conference October 13-14, 2016
CH. 3 Page
10/11/2016
11
Social Media
People v. Klein, 396 Ill.Dec. (3rd Dist. 2015).
People v. Schiller, 2012 Ill.App.2d 110677 (2nd Dist. 2012).
Social Media
2016 Criminal Law Conference October 13-14, 2016
CH. 3 Page
10/11/2016
12
FindingSocial MediaAccounts
“Where Facebook privacy settings allowviewership of postings by ‘friends,’ theGovernment may access them through acooperating witness who is a ‘friend’without violating the Fourth Amendment.”
United States v. Meregildo, 883 F.Supp.2d 523 (S.D.N.Y.2012).
2016 Criminal Law Conference October 13-14, 2016
CH. 3 Page
10/11/2016
13
7.7 billion search requestsper day
2016 Criminal Law Conference October 13-14, 2016
CH. 3 Page
10/11/2016
14
“Person’s Name” site:facebook.com
2016 Criminal Law Conference October 13-14, 2016
CH. 3 Page
10/11/2016
15
“Person’s Name” site:twitter.com
2016 Criminal Law Conference October 13-14, 2016
CH. 3 Page
10/11/2016
16
2016 Criminal Law Conference October 13-14, 2016
CH. 3 Page
10/11/2016
17
Search.fb.com
2016 Criminal Law Conference October 13-14, 2016
CH. 3 Page
10/11/2016
18
2016 Criminal Law Conference October 13-14, 2016
CH. 3 Page
10/11/2016
19
Findmyfbid.com
2016 Criminal Law Conference October 13-14, 2016
CH. 3 Page
10/11/2016
20
2016 Criminal Law Conference October 13-14, 2016
CH. 3 Page
10/11/2016
21
2016 Criminal Law Conference October 13-14, 2016
CH. 3 Page
10/11/2016
22
2016 Criminal Law Conference October 13-14, 2016
CH. 3 Page
10/11/2016
23
Google shall provide subscriber information for any Google accounts linked to the account [email protected] by cookies, recovery email address, or telephone number.
2016 Criminal Law Conference October 13-14, 2016
CH. 3 Page
10/11/2016
24
2016 Criminal Law Conference October 13-14, 2016
CH. 3 Page
10/11/2016
25
2016 Criminal Law Conference October 13-14, 2016
CH. 3 Page
10/11/2016
26
Images.google.com
2016 Criminal Law Conference October 13-14, 2016
CH. 3 Page
10/11/2016
27
https://www.social‐searcher.com/google‐social‐search/
https://www.social‐searcher.com/google‐social‐search/
2016 Criminal Law Conference October 13-14, 2016
CH. 3 Page
10/11/2016
28
https://www.social‐searcher.com/google‐social‐search/
Microsoft v. United States, ‐‐‐F.3d ‐‐‐‐ (2d Cir. 2016) (Searchwarrant invalid where it directed Microsoft to seize thecontents of its customer’s communications stored inIreland).
Preservation
2016 Criminal Law Conference October 13-14, 2016
CH. 3 Page
10/11/2016
29
2016 Criminal Law Conference October 13-14, 2016
CH. 3 Page
10/11/2016
30
2016 Criminal Law Conference October 13-14, 2016
CH. 3 Page
10/11/2016
31
Attribution
Look at yourprivacy settingsand content
2016 Criminal Law Conference October 13-14, 2016
CH. 3 Page
10/11/2016
32
Jurors &Social Media
2016 Criminal Law Conference October 13-14, 2016
CH. 3 Page
10/11/2016
33
VOIR DIRE“In this case, we are called to review a novel issuein Indiana—whether a juror, who was apparentlynot asked about her Facebook usage or friendships,engaged in juror misconduct when she did notdisclose during voir dire that a witness’s relativewas among her expansive list of Facebook friends.”
Slaybaugh v. State, 44 N.E.3d 111, 2015 WL 5612205 at *1 (Ind.Ct.App. 2015).
“Finally, the Bar also bears some responsibility. During voir dire, attorneys should routinely question jurors on their Internet usage and social networking habits. . . Counsel must expand the voir dire questioning to include inquiries into online activity.”
United States v. Fumo, 655 F.3d 288, 333 (3d Cir. 2011)(Nygaard, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
2016 Criminal Law Conference October 13-14, 2016
CH. 3 Page
10/11/2016
34
Investigating Jurors
VOIR DIRE
2014 Federal Judicial Center report:
“[M]ost judges do not know whetherattorneys are accessing potential jurors’social media profiles during voir dire, andmost judges do not address the issuewith attorneys.”
VOIR DIRE
2016 Criminal Law Conference October 13-14, 2016
CH. 3 Page
10/11/2016
35
VOIR DIRE
FJC Report:• 26% did not permit attorneys to use social media during
voir dire• 5% permitted• 69% did not address the issue with attorneys
Carino v. Muenzen, 2010WL3448071 (N.J. Super.Ct.App.Div. 2010) (Trial court erred by prohibiting attorney from conducting internet search of prospective jurors).
VOIR DIRE
Oracle v. Google, ‐‐‐ F.Supp.3d ‐‐‐‐, 2016 WL 1252794 (N.D. Ca. 2016) (Proposing procedures for Internet research on the venire and empaneled jury).
Improper ResearchZana v. State, 216 P.3d 244 (Nev. 2009) (No prejudice where juror unsuccessfully attempted to look up website mentioned during trial).
Wardlaw v. State, 971 A.2d 331 (Md.App. 2009) (Reversed and remanded where juror conducted internet research on Oppositional Defiant Disorder).
State v. Abdi, 45 A.3d 29 (Vt. 2012) (Reversed and remanded where juror conducted internet research on Somali culture).
2016 Criminal Law Conference October 13-14, 2016
CH. 3 Page
10/11/2016
36
Improper CommunicationState v. Smith, 418 S.W.3d 38 (Tenn. 2013) (Remandedwhere juror sent Facebook message to pathologist witness).
People v. Rios, 26 Misc.3d 1225(A) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2010) (Jurorsent two Facebook friend requests to firefighter witness,including during deliberations) (reversed on other grounds).
Improper CommunicationUnited States v. Fumo, 655 F.3d 288 (3d Cir. 2011)(Conviction affirmed where juror posted about trial on bothFacebook and Twitter).
United States v. Ganias, 755 F.3d 125 (2d Cir. 2014) (Jurorposted on FB the evening before the start of evidence: “Juryduty 2morrow. I may get 2 hang someone … can’t wait”).
Eskew v. Burlington Northern, 354 Ill.Dec. 683 (1st Dist.2011) (Affirming verdict where juror blogged details of thecase and deliberations).
2016 Criminal Law Conference October 13-14, 2016
CH. 3 Page
10/11/2016
37
United States v. Juror Number One, 866 F.Supp.2d 442 (E.D. Pa. 2011) (Upholding $1,000 fine against juror who discussed via email her opinion on defendant’s guilt with other jurors).
2016 Criminal Law Conference October 13-14, 2016
CH. 3 Page
10/11/2016
38
Jury Instructions
Ensuring an Impartial Jury in the Age of Social Media,11 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 1 (2012)
Once you start deliberating, do not communicate about thecase or your deliberations with anyone except other membersof your jury. You may not communicate with others about thecase or your deliberations by any means. This includes oral orwritten communication, as well as any electronic method ofcommunication, such as by telephone, cell phone, smartphone, iPhone, Blackberry, computer, text messaging, instantmessaging, the Internet, chat rooms, blogs, websites, orservices like Facebook, Google+, Skype, MySpace, LinkedIn,YouTube, Twitter, or any other method of communication.
‐‐7th Circuit Pattern Criminal Jury Instruction 7.01
2016 Criminal Law Conference October 13-14, 2016
CH. 3 Page
10/11/2016
39
POSSIBLE PREVENTIVE MEASURES:
• Consult with opposing counsel and the Court prior to jury selection concerning review and/or monitoring of juror social media communications
• Voir dire: ask about usage, contacts
• Review jurors’ social media presence, including during trial
• Jury Instructions
• Reminders early and often
• Explain specific conduct prohibited and reasons why
• Judicial Conference Committee
• NYSBA Social Media Jury Instructions Report
• Warn of potential sanctions
• Social media warning poster in jury room
Should jurors be told that they will be researched? General warning that social media communications are frequently viewable by the public
2016 Criminal Law Conference October 13-14, 2016
CH. 3 Page
10/11/2016
40
2016 Criminal Law Conference October 13-14, 2016
CH. 3 Page
10/11/2016
41
2016 Criminal Law Conference October 13-14, 2016
CH. 3 Page
10/11/2016
42
Archive.orgThe Wayback Machine
2016 Criminal Law Conference October 13-14, 2016
CH. 3 Page
10/11/2016
43
Archive.org
Archive.org
Archive.org
2016 Criminal Law Conference October 13-14, 2016
CH. 3 Page
10/11/2016
44
Archive.org
Archive.org
Archive.org
2016 Criminal Law Conference October 13-14, 2016
CH. 3 Page
10/11/2016
45
Archive.org
Archive.org
Archive.org“Courts have taken judicial notice of the contents of web pages available through the Wayback Machine as facts that can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned, see Fed.R.Evid. 201.” Hepp v. Ultra Green Energy Services, LLC, 2016 WL 1073070 at *2, fn 1. (N.D. IL March 18, 2016).
2016 Criminal Law Conference October 13-14, 2016
CH. 3 Page
10/11/2016
46
Google Maps
“We have taken judicial notice of – anddrawn our distance estimates from –images available on Google Maps, a sourcewhose accuracy cannot be reasonablyquestioned, at least for the purpose ofdetermining general distances.”
Cloe v. City of Indianapolis, 712 F.3d 1171, 1177, fn. 3
(7th Cir., 2013) (citation and internal quotation omitted).
“Moreover, case law supports the proposition that information acquired from mainstream Internet sites such as Map Quest and Google Maps is reliable enough to support a request for judicial notice.”
People v. Clark, 346 Ill.Dec. 386, 397 (2nd Dist. 2010).
2016 Criminal Law Conference October 13-14, 2016
CH. 3 Page
10/11/2016
47
“The distances are as calculated by GoogleMaps driving directions.”
Stormans, Inc. v. Wiesman, 136 S.Ct. 2433 (June 28, 2016).
2016 Criminal Law Conference October 13-14, 2016
CH. 3 Page
10/11/2016
48
Tracing IPs
2016 Criminal Law Conference October 13-14, 2016
CH. 3 Page
10/11/2016
49
Internet Service Providers
ISP Server
24.73.102.186
IP Address ≠ 1 computer
2016 Criminal Law Conference October 13-14, 2016
CH. 3 Page
10/11/2016
50
Router
Public IP Address
PrivateIP Address
• Wifi• NAT• War-driving• Proxy or VPN
Pitfalls
VPN or ProxyServer
ProxyIP Address
User IP Address
2016 Criminal Law Conference October 13-14, 2016
CH. 3 Page
10/11/2016
51
2016 Criminal Law Conference October 13-14, 2016
CH. 3 Page
10/11/2016
52
2016 Criminal Law Conference October 13-14, 2016
CH. 3 Page
10/11/2016
53
2016 Criminal Law Conference October 13-14, 2016
CH. 3 Page
10/11/2016
54
Bodie Haxall(312) 353-8728
2016 Criminal Law Conference October 13-14, 2016
CH. 3 Page