You are here: / / WARRANTS ISSUED TO FACEBOOK UNDER THE STORED COMMUNICATIONS ACT CANNOT...

WARRANTS ISSUED TO FACEBOOK UNDER THE STORED COMMUNICATIONS ACT CANNOT BE TREATED AS CIVIL SUBPOENAS, UNDER THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW THERE IS NO MECHANISM FOR APPEALING THE DENIAL OF A MOTION TO QUASH A WARRANT.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Stein, over a concurring opinion and an extensive dissenting opinion, determined that the Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) did not allow a motion to quash a warrant issued pursuant to the federal Stored Communications Act (SCA) and did not allow an appeal from the denial of the motion. The motions and appeals were brought by Facebook in response to SCA warrants seeking information about subscriber accounts in connection with criminal investigations. Facebook argued that the warrants were actually subpoenas which could be quashed under civil standards. The Court of Appeals held the warrants were not subpoenas and the CPL therefore controlled:

​

That the SCA draws a distinction between warrants and subpoenas, and the content that may be obtained therewith, is of critical significance with respect to a determination of appellate jurisdiction over the appeal from the denial of Facebook’s motion to quash. It is a fundamental precept of the jurisdiction of our appellate courts that “‘[n]o appeal lies from a determination made in a criminal proceeding unless specifically provided for by statute'” … . No provision of the Criminal Procedure Law articles that govern appeals — which are among “‘the most highly structured and highly particularized articles of procedure'” … — authorizes an appeal to either an intermediate appellate court or to this Court from an order denying a motion to quash or vacate a search warrant … . Moreover, no civil appeal may be brought from an order entered in a criminal action or proceeding … . * * *

​

In the instant matter, Facebook concedes that an order addressing a motion to quash a warrant is not appealable, but Facebook contends — and the dissent agrees — that, despite being denominated as “warrants,” SCA warrants are more analogous to subpoenas than to traditional search warrants involving tangible property because they compel third parties to disclose digital data. Thus, Facebook and the dissent urge us to treat Supreme Court’s first order denying its motion to quash the warrants as an appealable order denying a motion to quash subpoenas. This argument is unpersuasive. Matter of 381 Search Warrants Directed to Facebook, Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 02586, CtApp 4-4-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (WARRANTS ISSUED TO FACEBOOK UNDER THE STORED COMMUNICATIONS ACT CANNOT BE TREATED AS CIVIL SUBPOENAS, UNDER THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW THERE IS NO MECHANISM FOR APPEALING THE DENIAL OF A MOTION TO QUASH A WARRANT)/STORED COMMUNICATIONS ACT (WARRANTS ISSUED TO FACEBOOK UNDER THE STORED COMMUNICATIONS ACT CANNOT BE TREATED AS CIVIL SUBPOENAS, UNDER THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW THERE IS NO MECHANISM FOR APPEALING THE DENIAL OF A MOTION TO QUASH A WARRANT)/SEARCH AND SEIZURE  (WARRANTS ISSUED TO FACEBOOK UNDER THE STORED COMMUNICATIONS ACT CANNOT BE TREATED AS CIVIL SUBPOENAS, UNDER THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW THERE IS NO MECHANISM FOR APPEALING THE DENIAL OF A MOTION TO QUASH A WARRANT)/SUBPOENAS (STORED COMMUNICATIONS ACT, WARRANTS ISSUED TO FACEBOOK UNDER THE STORED COMMUNICATIONS ACT CANNOT BE TREATED AS CIVIL SUBPOENAS, UNDER THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW THERE IS NO MECHANISM FOR APPEALING THE DENIAL OF A MOTION TO QUASH A WARRANT)/FACEBOOK  (WARRANTS ISSUED TO FACEBOOK UNDER THE STORED COMMUNICATIONS ACT CANNOT BE TREATED AS CIVIL SUBPOENAS, UNDER THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW THERE IS NO MECHANISM FOR APPEALING THE DENIAL OF A MOTION TO QUASH A WARRANT)

You might also like
Presumption of Vindictive Sentencing Did Not Apply Here Where Defendant Rejected a Plea Offer with a Sentence of Ten Years Probation and, After Trial, Was Sentenced to 10 to 20 Years in Prison
LEAD AGENCY TOOK THE REQUISITE HARD LOOK AT LEAD DUST AND NOISE CONCERNS RAISED IN CONNECTION WITH CONSTRUCTION NEAR A SCHOOL IN NEW YORK CITY AND, AFTER IMPOSING MITIGATION MEASURES, PROPERLY APPROVED THE CONSTRUCTION (CT APP).
HERE THE DEFENDANT CLAIMED HE ACTED IN SELF-DEFENSE WHEN HE STABBED THE VICTIM WITH A PEN KNIFE; THE DEFENDANT SOUGHT TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE OF THE VICTIM’S PRIOR VIOLENT ACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE; THE TRIAL JUDGE INSTRUCTED THE JURY ON THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE BUT DID NOT ALLOW EVIDENCE OF THE VICTIM’S PRIOR VIOLENT ACTS TO BE CONSIDERED ON THAT ISSUE; THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED, UPHOLDING THE RULE THAT THE VICTIM’S PRIOR VIOLENT ACTS ARE NOT ADMISSIBLE PROOF OF JUSTIFICATION UNLESS THE DEFENDANT WAS AWARE OF THE PRIOR VIOLENT ACTS AT THE TIME OF THE INCIDENT (CT APP).
WHERE THE DEFENDANT AND THE IDENTIFYING WITNESS APPEAR TO BELONG TO DIFFERENT RACIAL GROUPS, THE DEFENDANT, UPON REQUEST, IS ENTITLED TO A CROSS-RACIAL IDENTIFICATION JURY INSTRUCTION, IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER THE ISSUE WAS RAISED AT TRIAL (CT APP).
NEW YORK’S PERSISTENT FELONY OFFENDER SENTENCING SCHEME IS CONSTITUTIONAL, IT DOES NOT INVOLVE PROOF OF A FACT OTHER THAN A PRIOR FELONY CONVICTION.
PURSUANT TO THE “INTERNAL AFFAIRS” DOCTRINE, PLAINTIFF, A NEW YORK CORPORATION AND BENEFICIAL OWNER OF SHARES IN BARCLAYS, AN ENGLISH CORPORATION, DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO BRING A DERIVATIVE SUIT ON BEHALF OF BARCLAYS AGAINST OFFICERS AND MANAGERS OF A NEW YORK AFFILIATE OF BARCLAYS IN NEW YORK (CT APP).
THE SEARCH OF A SMALL EARBUD CASE IN DEFENDANT-PAROLEE’S POCKET WAS NOT REASONABLY RELATED TO THE CLAIMED PURPOSE OF THE PAROLE OFFICERS’ PRESENCE IN DEFENDANT’S RESIDENCE, I.E., A SEARCH FOR A PAROLE ABSONDER; THE HEROIN FOUND IN THE EARBUD CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (CT APP).
OFFICE OF MENTAL HEALTH IS NOT REQUIRED TO ALLOW COUNSEL FROM MENTAL HEALTH LEGAL SERVICES TO PARTICIPATE IN TREATMENT PLANNING FOR A SEX OFFENDER (CT APP).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

TITLE TO ARTWORK PURCHASED DURING THE MARRIAGE CANNOT BE DETERMINED BY REFERENCE... KILLING OF PLAINTIFF IN HER OFFICE WAS NOT FORESEEABLE BY THE BUILDING OWNERS...