Thomson Reuters News & Insight
Featured Content from WESTLAW

Legal

  •  
  •  

Occupy Wall Street protesters in Zuccotti Park, New York. Oct. 1, 2011. REUTERS Jessica Rinaldi

Occupy protester's tweets fair game for prosecutors: judge

4/23/2012 COMMENTS (3)

NEW YORK, April 23 (Reuters) - An Occupy Wall Street protester has lost his bid to quash a subpoena seeking his Twitter records from last fall, when he was arrested during a mass protest on the Brooklyn Bridge.

Criminal Court Judge Matthew Sciarrino Jr., who is overseeing a special courtroom dedicated to handling nearly 2,000 Occupy-related cases, ruled that Malcolm Harris did not have standing to challenge the third-party subpoena. Prosecutors from the Manhattan District Attorney's Office served the subpoena on Twitter in January, requesting Harris' user information and more than three months' worth of tweets.

The judge compared Harris to a bank account holder who by law cannot challenge a subpoena of his records served on his bank.

"Twitter's license to use the defendant's Tweets means that the Tweets the defendant posted were not his," the judge wrote in a decision filed Friday.

Sciarrino's ruling -- which featured a handful of hashtags such as, "That motion is #denied" -- could bolster similar subpoenas that prosecutors have served on Twitter seeking records from other Occupy protesters.

Even though Harris lacked standing, Sciarrino said prosecutors had met the "low" legal threshold required to issue a subpoena.

In particular, he said prosecutors had shown that the tweets could have relevance to the case against Harris, by calling into question his "anticipated defense" that police officers led protesters onto the bridge before arresting them in October.

Martin Stolar of the National Lawyers Guild, who is representing Harris and filed the motion to quash, said he was planning to file a motion to reargue.

"I think the judge is incorrect in his understanding of the law," he said.

The district attorney's office declined comment Monday, referring to its brief in opposition to the motion.

The case is People v. Harris, Criminal Court of the City of New York, No. 2011NY080152.

For the prosecution: Assistant District Attorney Lee Langston

For Harris: Martin Stolar of the National Lawyers Guild

(Reporting by Joseph Ax)

Follow us on Twitter: @ReutersLegal 

 


Comments (3)

4/23/2012 6:05:56 PM by SueBasko

If this Judge's ruling were correct, which it is not, that would mean that by using any internet service, such as Youtube, emails, livestream, ustream, flickr, vimeo, Facebook, myspace, etc., the users would lose ownership and rights to their material -- which is not the case. This Judge's ruling goes contrary to the whole big body of law about internet subpoenas and warrants. Instead of trying to be clever and using hashtags to explain a topic with which the judge is unfamiliar, he should have sent the case to a judge that knows internet law. This body of law is way too important to let this happen -- time to reargue then appeal, or do whatever it takes.

4/23/2012 5:47:59 PM by SueBasko

This is a judge who clearly does not understand the law of Internet subpoenas. The Judge's rationale makes no sense and in no way follows the law of internet subpoenas. Of course Malcolm Harris has standing on this subpoena. This one Judge is not going to single-handedly change the law of subpoenas and warrants on communications. Appeal time!

4/23/2012 5:32:13 PM by DenJansen

Any time you Tweet stuff, it enters into the public domain. Otherwise celebrities could sue blogs for reposting their tweets. Why are people surprised the judge ruled in the prosecution's favor? If you don't want stuff coming up in court, don't discuss it on a website that, by design, is open for public viewing.


Register or log in to comment.

© 2013 Thomson Reuters