{"id":64287,"date":"2026-06-22T21:45:53","date_gmt":"2026-06-23T02:45:53","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=64287"},"modified":"2026-06-22T21:45:53","modified_gmt":"2026-06-23T02:45:53","slug":"co-facebook-sw-lacked-pc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=64287","title":{"rendered":"CO: Facebook SW lacked PC"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Social media search warrant for defendant\u2019s Facebook account was invalid because there was no indication that he communicated with his sex assault victims through it. People v. Van Eck<\/a>, 2026 Colo. App. LEXIS 1043 (June 11, 2026) (unpublished): <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n

[P18] The only social media platform the affidavit discussed was Van Eck’s Facebook page, which showed photos of him with tattoos that matched S.A.’s description. The affidavit also said his profile page indicated that he had “liked” a pornographic movie and other sexual material \u2014 none of which related to rape or sexual assault. Although the affidavit reasoned that using Facebook “to look at sexually themed sites” made it “likely that he also used his phone to view such sites, which may include rape related sites,” police did not ask to search the phone’s browser history.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[P19] Overall, the affidavit lacked evidence that Van Eck used social media to communicate with victims, about victims, or about his sexual activity. Thus, there were not “sufficient facts to allow a person of reasonable caution to believe that contraband or evidence of criminal activity [was] located” in Van Eck’s social media communications. Rodriguez-Ortiz, \u00b6 21 (quoting Miller, 75 P.3d at 1112). “[V]ague allegations” that his social media could possibly contain evidence of a crime without any “nexus between the alleged criminal activity and place to be searched cannot establish probable cause.” Kazmierski, 25 P.3d at 1211. Therefore, the first part of the search warrant is invalid.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Social media search warrant for defendant\u2019s Facebook account was invalid because there was no indication that he communicated with his sex assault victims through it. People v. Van Eck, 2026 Colo. App. LEXIS 1043 (June 11, 2026) (unpublished):<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[20,118],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-64287","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-probable-cause","category-social-media-warrants"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/64287","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=64287"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/64287\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":64288,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/64287\/revisions\/64288"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=64287"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=64287"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=64287"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}