Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 186 A.3d 1224 - Everett v. State

Everett v. State’s Empirical Analysis

2018

Citation profile

1
cited by 1 later decisions
1
states following
January 2019
most recently cited

1 state decisions

Relationships

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2703 (§ 201 of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986)

Relies on Katz v. United States · Schneckloth v. Bustamonte · Franks v. Delaware · Rakas v. Illinois · Hoffa v. United States

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[T]he Fourth Amendment does not guard against the risk that the person from whom one accepts a 'friend request' and to whom one voluntary disclosed such information might turn out to be an undercover officer or a 'false friend.' One cannot reasonably believe that such 'false friends' will not disclose incriminating statements or information to law enforcement-and acts under the risk that one such person might actually be an undercover government agent. And thus, one does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in incriminating information shared with them because that is not an expectation that the United States Supreme Court has said that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “would not be shared with law enforcement, he had no justifiable expectation that his 'friends' would keep his profile private. [Citation.] And the wider his circle of 'friends,' the more likely [the defendant's] posts would be viewed by someone he never expected to see them. [The defendant's] legitimate expectation of privacy ended when he disseminated posts to his 'friends' because those 'friends' were free to use the information however they wanted-including sharing it with the Government. [Citation.] When [the defendant] posted to his [social media] profile and then shared those posts with his 'friends,' he did so at his peril.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “privacy settings allow viewership of postings by 'friends,' the Government may access them through a cooperating witness who is a 'friend' without violating the Fourth Amendment.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.