New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
Commercial Litigation and Arbitration
« Back to Complex Lit Blog

Facebook Authentication — Sufficient Where Party Admits Making One Post; Later Posts Refer Back to It; No Evidence Anyone Else Had Access to Facebook Account — Statements on Facebook Page = Party Admissions

Download PDF

Matter of MC v. State, 2015 Nev. Unpub. LEXIS 646 (Nev. Sup. Ct. Feb. 26, 2015):

North Las Vegas Police monitored the Facebook activity of approximately 130 individuals by befriending them under a fictitious name. M.C. was one of the individuals monitored. North Las Vegas Police Officer Richard Arnold found a two-day-old posting on M.C.'s Facebook stating, "Killing spree by myself. I got four clips that hold seventeen and five hundred bullets. And I don't give a fuck no more." That post was viewed by several of M.C.'s Facebook friends. M.C. was arrested after a search of his house that revealed no weapons or ammunition. M.C. claimed he was not serious when he made the post and said he made the post because he was upset after fighting with his girlfriend. The State ultimately charged M.C. with making a terrorist threat under NRS 202.448.

After a contested hearing, the hearing master recommended that M.C. be adjudicated delinquent. Specifically, the hearing master concluded that M.C. violated NRS 202.448(1) by making a terroristic threat via Facebook [*2]  with the intent to (1) alarm or intimidate others, (2) cause panic or civil unrest, and (3) interfere with police operations. Additionally, the hearing master concluded that the First and Fourth Amendments did not prevent M.C. from being adjudicated as delinquent. The district court approved the hearing master's findings, conclusions, and recommendations over M.C.'s objection. M.C. now appeals.

On appeal, M.C. contends that (1) the State violated his Fourth Amendment rights by monitoring his Facebook account, (2) the First Amendment requires the State to prove he subjectively intended to make a threat when he made the Facebook post, and (3) the district court erred in admitting testimony from Officer Arnold about the contents of M.C.'s Facebook page.

***

The Hearing Master Did Not Err in Allowing Officer Arnold to Testify About the Content of M.C.'s Facebook Page

M.C. argues that the hearing master erred in allowing Officer Arnold to testify about the contents of M.C.'s Facebook page because (1) Officer Arnold did not have personal knowledge regarding who actually made various posts on M.C.'s Facebook account, and (2) Officer Arnold's testimony constituted inadmissible hearsay. M.C.'s arguments lack merit. First, there was "sufficient direct or circumstantial corroborating evidence of authorship" to authenticate M.C.'s Facebook posts as his own. Rodriguez v. State, 128 Nev. Adv. Rep. 14,    , 273 P.3d 845, 849 (2012). Specifically, he admitted making the killing-spree post, subsequent communications referred back to that post, and there is no indication that someone else accessed his Facebook account. Cf. id. at    , 273 P.3d 849-50 (authenticating [*6]  text messages was complicated by the fact that multiple defendants had access to the relevant phone). Second, Officer Arnold's statements about the contents of M.C.'s Facebook page (namely, that he referred to himself as "Murder Man" and claimed an affiliation with the 004 Hoodsman street gang) did not constitute hearsay because they were party admissions. See NRS 51.035(3)(a) (party admissions are exempt from the general hearsay rule). Therefore, the district court did not err in relying on testimony from Officer Arnold about the contents of M.C.'s Facebook page.

Share this article:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email

Recent Posts

Rule 41(b): Five Factors to Be Weighed in Deciding Whether Dismissal Is Appropriate (Second Circuit) — Is A Finding of Bad Faith or Fault Required if Dismissal Is Without Prejudice? — Undecided If Truly Without Prejudice But It Is Required If the Without Prejudice Dismissal Will Act as a Dismissal on the Merits (Here, Because of the Statute of Limitations) — Failure To Consider A Lesser Sanction Than Dismissal Is Generally An Abuse Of Discretion

Spoliation Sanctions/Mootness: Stipulation Resolving “All Pending Discovery Disputes,” Which Are Enumerated, Does Not Moot Subsequent Sanctions Motion for ESI Spoliation — Postjudgment Sanctions Order Is Appealable When District Court Has Finally Disposed of Both Liability and Amount

Rule 37 Default Judgment Sanction: (1) Default Judgment Appropriate Only As a Last Resort, When Less Drastic Sanctions Would Not Ensure Compliance with the Court’s Orders — (2) Default Judgment Sanction Requires Willful or Bad Faith Failure to Obey Discovery Order — (3) Fugitive Defendant’s Failure to Appear at Court-Ordered, Remote Deposition Despite Court Warning That Sanctions Could Follow Disobedience Warrants Default Judgment — (4) District Court Afforded Wide Discretion in Interpreting Its Own Orders — (5) Filing a Notice of Appeal from a Non-Appealable Order (Here, a Discovery Order) Does Not Deprive the District Court of Jurisdiction over the Case

RICO and Injunctions: (1) State Court Actions Designed to Perpetuate and Monetize a RICO Violation Are Enjoinable under RICO, Even Though They Are Not Themselves Alleged to Be Predicate Acts [Note: Noerr Pennington Applies in RICO Actions] — (2) Although Civil RICO’s Text and Legislative History Fail to Reveal Any Intent to Override the Provisions of the Federal Arbitration Act, Arbitrations Are Enjoinable Under the “Effective Vindication” Doctrine Where They Operate As a Prospective Waiver of a Party’s Right to Pursue Statutory RICO Remedies — (3) Arbitration Findings May Be Given Collateral Estoppel Effect in a Civil RICO Action — (4) Injunction of Non-Corrupt State Court Litigations That Furthers a RICO Violation Are Enjoinable Under the Anti-Injunction Act’s “Expressly Authorized” Exception — (5) “The Irreparable Harm Requirement Is The Single Most Important Prerequisite For The Issuance Of A Preliminary Injunction” (Good Quote) — (6) When Injunction Is Based on “Serious Questions on the Merits” Rather Than “Likelihood of Success,” Court May Rely on Unverified Pleadings and Attached Exhibits to Assess the Merits, Unless the Opponent Has Raised Substantial Questions (Here, the Opponent Failed to Request an Evidentiary Hearing) — (7) Whether Amended Pleading Moots An Appeal Turns on Whether It Materially Changes the Substantive Basis for the Appeal — (8) Meaning of “In That” (“Used To Introduce A Statement That Explains Or Gives More Specific Information” About A Prior Statement)

RICO: Fraudulent Concealment Must Prevent Discovery of the Injury to Toll Statute of Limitations

Rule 37 Default Judgment Sanction: (1) Abuse of Discretion Review = Legal Conclusions De Novo. Factual Findings for Clear Error — (2) Client May Be Sanctioned for Misconduct of Its Counsel, Though Here Client Was Directly Involved in Bad Faith Misbehavior — (3) Is There A Difference, Under Rule 11 As Opposed to Rule 37, Concerning Whether A Client Can Be Sanctioned for Its Counsel’s Misconduct? — (4) While Sanctions of Last Resort (Dismissal/Default) Are Apt Only If Lesser Sanctions Wouldn’t Ensure Compliance, Rule 37 Doesn’t Require the Vain Gesture of First Imposing Lessert Sanctions When It Is Clear They Would be Ineffective — (5) Court’s Reconsideration of Non-Final Orders Is Governed by Rule 54(b), And Court’s Discretion under That Rule Is Governed by the Law-of-the-Case-Doctrine

RICO: (1) Special Pleading Requirements? — (2) Although Enterprise Must Be More Than a Summation of the Predicate Acts, The Predicate Acts Can Demonstrate the Existence of the Enterprise — (3) Requirement That Association-in-Fact Exist For Purposes Other Than Just to Commit Predicate Acts Merely Requires Continuity — (4) To State an Association-in-Fact Enterprise Consisting of One Natural Person and Collection of Legal Fictions Requires Factual Detail As to How They Acted Together — (5) “A § 1962(c) Enterprise Must Be More Than An Association of Individuals Or Entities Conducting the Normal Affairs of a Defendant Corporation” (Good Quote)

RICO: (1) Fee Award May Exceed Amount Recovered — Strict Proportionality Not Required — (2) Nonmonetary Benefits and Injunctive Relief Recovered Also Relevant Factors — (3) Loss on Some Claims Need Not Result in Lowered Fees, Especially When Both Arise Out of The Same Nucleus of Operative Facts

RICO: Indirect Purchasers (Car Buyers/Renters) Lack Standing to Sue Manufacturers for RICO Violations Even Though Intermediaries (Auto Dealer Direct Purchasers) Lack Any Damages

RICO: Statutory Requirement that RICO Be Liberally Construed Does Not Establish a More Liberal Pleading Standard for RICO Claims — “To Be Sure, Adequately Pleading a RICO Claim Can Be Challenging” (Good Quote) — Court May Dismiss Action Pursuant to Rule 41(b) Absent A Motion

Archives
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

New York Office

© 2024 Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC  
Disclaimer | Attorney Advertising Notice | Legal Notice