2. Sharing Your Content and Information
You own all of the content and information you post on Facebook, and you can control how it is shared through your privacy and application settings. In addition:
i. For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos ("IP content"), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook ("IP License"). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it.
In other words they do not have ownership of content but have a licence to the content as long as it is kept on their servers.
Originally Posted by FACEBOOK'S SRC
An Enlightened Master is ideal only if your goal is to become a Benighted Slave. -- Robert Anton Wilson
This kid was a ****ing idiot for pleading no contest. He could have easily fought this and won. There are so many avenues of defense one can take that it's ridiculous not to get it thrown out.
"I do not claim that every incident in the history of empire can be explained in directly economic terms. Economic interests are filtered through a political process, policies are implemented by a complex state apparatus, and the whole system generates its own momentum."
Since nobody making the goofy claim that undercover work requires a search warrant will back it up, I went and looked up an article that explains that it is NOT required (duh).
On the other hand, this article does explain that in some cases, misdemeanor arrests are limited to offenses that occur in the officer's presence, which would apply here. And which makes sense too.
Consent once removed - Legal Digest - search warrant law | FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin,The | Find Articles at BNET
Now had the officer gotten a subpoena to obtain records directly from Facebook, then nothing could be argued about that.
Also, undercover investigations such a drug busts and prostitution stings have something in common that this case does not: they catch a person in the act of commiting the crime. The officer isn't there to charge for a possible prostitution that happened six months ago or even an hour ago. They bust for what is occurring then and once the bust occurs, they announce their official capacity as an officer, right then. In this case, the officer singled a particular person out, gained access to his correspondence, pictures, etc going so far as to use a false gender to do so and then luring him to a designated place to make an arrest with no real evidence to support the crime. Just hearsay via his facebook page and an assumption there was alcohol in a cup in a picture.
It could have gotten thrown out. Even if the officer wanted to push it, with minimal fight, I am pretty sure a DA would have declined to prosecute it because of the HUGE waste of public safety and court resources involved in a trial to prosecute a status offense with such questionable police work.
The kid was dumb to make a plea of no contest.