Facebook, Inc. v. State
New Jersey Supreme Court
296 A.3d 492 (2023)
- Written by Jamie Milne, JD
Facts
New Jersey police suspected two Facebook users were committing drug offenses. In each case, the police applied for a Communications Data Warrant (CDW) based on probable cause to suspect criminal activity. Both CDWs were granted. Each CDW directed Facebook, Inc. (plaintiff) to provide the users’ historical communications from preceding months, which Facebook did. However, the CDWs also instructed Facebook to provide the contents of each user’s future communications for the next 30 days in 15-minute increments, which was the closest to real time that Facebook’s systems supported. Facebook moved to quash that portion of the CDWs, arguing that a wiretap order, which required more than mere probable cause, was necessary to access the future communications. The government countered that a wiretap order was not necessary because the communications were not being intercepted in real time but were instead being retrieved from Facebook’s servers after 15 minutes, making them stored communications. The trial court reviewing each motion agreed with Facebook and quashed the portion of the CDWs concerning prospective communications. The state appellate court consolidated the cases and reversed, holding that wiretap orders were not necessary. Facebook appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Rabner, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 907,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,100 briefs, keyed to 996 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

