ACLU Challenges Warrant to Search Data of Facebook Page for Group Protesting Dakota Access Pipeline
Warrant Served on Facebook is Overbroad and Violates First and Fourth Amendments, ACLU Argues in Court Filing
BELLINGHAM, Wash. — The American Civil Liberties Union today filed a motion to quash a warrant issued to police to search a Facebook community page for a broad range of information about a local group engaged in protesting the Dakota Access Pipeline and advocating for environmental justice.
The warrant served on Facebook seeks private, sensitive information about people’s political views and opinions, images of political actions, and personal information, including locations. A hearing on the ACLU’s motion is scheduled for Tuesday morning in Whatcom County Superior Court.
The Bellingham #NODAPL Coalition’s Facebook page gives information and updates on protests of the $3.8 billion Dakota Access Pipeline, which is intended to carry North Dakota oil to Illinois.
“The warrant at issue here is deeply problematic and runs afoul of constitutional protections. Political speech and the freedom to engage in political activity without being subjected to undue government scrutiny are at the heart of the First Amendment,” said La Rond Baker, staff attorney at the ACLU of Washington. “Further, the Fourth Amendment prohibits the government from performing broad fishing expeditions into private affairs. And seizing information from Facebook accounts simply because they are associated with protests of the government violates these core constitutional principles.”
The Whatcom County Sheriff’s Department obtained a search warrant seeking not only private information about the NoDAPL group’s political activity as encapsulated on , but also data related to an unknown number of people who merely interacted with the group via Facebook at some point during the 12 days covered by the warrant — a timeframe that includes a NoDAPL protest of the Trump administration’s actions on the pipeline.
“Overbroad warrants such as this one have far-reaching implications,” said Brett Max Kaufman, an attorney with the ACLU’s Center for Democracy. “Government requests for information protected by the First Amendment must meet a high bar in order to ensure that political speech and advocacy are not chilled. The Constitution gives wide berth to that kind of civic participation, and law enforcement must respect that space in carrying out its activities.”
The First Amendment protects political speech, the right to receive information, and the right to associate with others to engage in political speech and advocacy without government monitoring or interference. When warrants target speech and activity protected by the First Amendment, the motion argues, courts must apply a heightened level of scrutiny in evaluating their legality. The ACLU challenged the warrant as an unlawful intrusion on all of these rights and asserts that upholding such a warrant would have a chilling effect on protected speech.
The ACLU’s motion argued tht the warrant also fails to meet the basic requirement under the Fourth Amendment that warrants be particularized, meaning that they must describe in detail items for which the government has probable cause to search. This requirement ensures government cannot rummage through someone’s personal effects. Further, when searches involve broad intrusions, such as searches of computers or online accounts like Facebook, the need for such limitations on warrants is especially great, courts have found.
The Standing Rock and Cheyenne River Sioux Tribes argue the pipeline threatens drinking water and cultural sites, and a broad-based coalition of opponents, NODAPL, have staged protests across the nation. The ACLU provided legal observers and supported the protesters in Standing Rock, who were the victims of excessive police force.
The warrant served on Facebook is here:
/legal-document/warrant-served-facebook-data-pipelin...
Today’s motion is here:
/sites/default/files/field_document/motion_to_quash_...
Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Free Speech
National Security
ACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok BanACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON — Today, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to block the enforcement of a law that would effectively ban people in America from using TikTok as soon as January 19, 2025. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected TikTok’s challenge to the law. TikTok has asked the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction to prevent the app from being banned while the court considers whether to take the case, saying that unless the justices intervene, the law will “shutter one of America’s most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.” “The Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,”said Patrick Toomey, deputy director of ACLU’s National Security Project. “The Supreme Court should take up this important case and protect the rights of millions of Americans to freely express themselves and engage with others around the world.” The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law’s profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court’s decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users’ First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government’s ban on TikTok as a vindication of users’ First Amendment rights, which it is not. The rights groups also explain that the law was intended to suppress certain content and viewpoints that many legislators believe could be amplified on TikTok, including the risk of foreign “propaganda.” But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its “motivating ideology” or “perspective,” and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. “The government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,” said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. “The Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit’s erroneous ruling.” Finally, the brief underscores that the government can’t impose this type of sweeping ban unless it’s necessary to prevent extremely serious and imminent harm to national security. But the government has not provided evidence of impending harm, or evidence that banning TikTok is the only available way to address its concerns. As the brief explains, the D.C. Circuit improperly treated the government’s invocation of “national security” as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. “Restricting citizens’ access to foreign media is a practice that has long been associated with repressive regimes, and we should be very wary of letting the practice take root here,” said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. “It would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.” You can find the brief online here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A587/335380/20241217144322392_24A587%20TikTok%20v%20Garland%20Amicus%20Brief%20pdfa.pdf -
MississippiJul 2024
Free Speech
Privacy & Technology
NetChoice v. FitchNetChoice v. Fitch
Whether a law that mandates age verification for all users of social media services violates the First Amendment. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Free Speech
Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.
We break down the absurd-but-true history of trying to censor sexual speech under the guise of "keeping kids safe." -
Minnesota Supreme CourtNov 2024
Free Speech
Energy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn RiotEnergy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn Riot
This case in the Minnesota Supreme Court asks whether the MFFIA's protections apply to newsgatherers even if they are alleged to have engaged in trespassing while newsgathering. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Minnesota and law firm Biersdorf & Associations, filed a brief representing Unicorn Riot, a media organization that covered protests of the Dakota Access Pipeline. The brief argues that MFFIA and constitutional reporter’s privileges, under both the U.S. and Minnesota constitutions, protect Unicorn Riot from having to comply with Energy Transfer’s subpoenas.