Judge Mily Rodriguez Powell wrote that the information shared by the Plaintiffs on social media websites was “clearly relevant to the subject matter of the current litigation” and narrow in scope (given the short history of social media, narrowly tailoring such requests is often not difficult).  The court further held there was no expectation of privacy, citing to New York and California cases.

The Bent v. Northwest Medical Center et al. order is here.

For similar recent opinions out of Pennsylvania and New York, see “No Such Thing As Privacy in the Social Media World.”

But there may be a positive side of this issue: jurors are, like the rest of us, often tied to the internet or smartphones.  Perhaps their use of the internet PRIOR to their involvement in trial might tell lawyers something about potential jurors.  A better jury means a better trial.

In early 2009, I wrote an article about how to use the internet to research jurors during voir dire.  This proved helpful as a practical trial technique and was (independent from my article) a practice quickly assumed by other lawyers.

But, while the voir dire data-mining effort is useful, it remains very Web 1.0.  You are using the internet to gain information.  Great, but that research method is too linear.  Why?  The jurors’ practical use of the internet may be as valuable, if not more, than their factual background information.  Just ask — most of us are quite willing to discuss our internet habits.  In fact, it might make for some compelling voir dire discussion (tailored to the case, court’s discretion, and time limits).

If you follow the 2009 article, you may stumble across an public Facebook page or an interesting Twitter feed in order to detect a better vantage of the juror’s personality.  But openly exploring with jurors how they use the internet, what connections they make (news?  personal?  purchases?), and where they go may tell the lawyer a lot more about the person, how they think, their attention span, their methods of obtaining/retaining information, etc.  That’s a Web 2.0 approach (to borrow a tiring phrase), if not more contemporary — and you do not have to use the internet.  Just ask good questions.

Check out the December 2011 article from the Palm Beach Bar Bulletin, “What Are Your Jurors Doing on the Internet?”  It may lead you to some new voir dire approaches.

Read the article from this month’s Palm Beach Bar Bulletin, “The Supreme Court, GPS Darts & George Orwell.”

The underlying opinion is here.  The order on rehearing is here.  The SCOTUS briefing schedule is here.

The ABA Journal piece, Sky-High Spy, is here.

Another recent cellphone tracking case (in Florida) is here.

This October 2011 article from the Palm Beach Bar Association explains, in step-by-step format, how to secure your Facebook accounts.

In light of the recent Facebook changes, however, you may need to do some further hunting to find some of these options.

During an in camera evidentiary hearing, Juror X stated that the “hanging” comment was simply a joke and that he kept an open mind throughout the trial.  Likewise, he acknowledged that he Facebook-friended Juror Y but that they never have improper communications during the trial.

The order in United States v. Stavros M. Ganias is here.

Historically, the bill was proposed in December 2010, voted on in the House and Senate without a single “nay” vote, and signed by the Governor in June.  The statute creates new law, Florida Statute 847.0146.  Few, if any, of the news reports provides the news statute number which hampers finding the original text.  As of this writing, Florida’s Online Sunshine is not updated with the new law.  In short, it is hard to find the new law.

But no worries…

a good summary of the SB is here.

The history of the bill(s) is here.

The House Bill Analysis is here (provides the background analysis of the bill).

And the bill/law is here.

In the discussion with the parents, we emphasized what parents could do to ensure that the home was a safe computer environment and how to speak with their children about privacy, security settings, and good Internet habits.  During the student presentation, we discussed six good Internet habits, Facebook Security, and Xbox Live Security.

Another section covered with both groups is the risk that online downloading, photo sharing, and other activities can potentially lead to civil and criminal penalties.

An Adobe PDF version of the parent presentation is here.  The student version is here.

Read the September 2011 article, “Will Your Law Firm Accept Bitcoin?” from the Palm Beach Bar Bulletin.

The debate continues in the New York Times and other places…

This article discusses how the iPhone accumulates and stores location data — and how it can be obtained by lawyers in civil cases.

Originally published in the Trial Advocate Quarterly, Volume 30, Number 3, Summer 2011.  Download Using iPhone Location Data in Discovery.