In this post, our Missouri personal injury lawyers examine a recent decision from Missouri's Western District Court of Appeals that may be of relevance to our readers. In the State of Missouri vs. James Arthur Clampitt, the State appealed a judgment that granted the defendant's motion to suppress certain text messages, but the appeal was unsuccessful. The ruling marks the first appellate case in Missouri to extend the same privacy protection to text messages that has always applied to telephone conversations.
The Case
Clampitt is facing two separate criminal charges of first-degree involuntary manslaughter, and is also charged with leaving the scene of an accident. The charges are connected to a June 2010 accident in Audrain County, Missouri, when Clampitt's SUV collided with a riding lawnmower. The driver of the mower, Richard Cobb, was killed. Clampitt was found to be intoxicated, and he later told a radio station that he thought he had struck a curb while checking a text message. Cobb's family has also filed a wrongful death suit against Clampitt in St. Louis.
The State had issued subpoenas for text message records associated with four separate phone numbers, and received those records from U.S. Cellular. The reason for the subpoena, the Special Prosecutor testified, was that the State hoped to obtain an admission from Clampitt - specifically, she sought confirmation that Clampitt (or one of his family members) was driving the SUV when the collision occurred. Additionally, the prosecutor testified that she did not seek a warrant for the records because she believed they were "records in possession of a third party," and that a subpoena was a "sufficient means for obtaining such information from third parties."
In response, Clampitt filed a motion to suppress the text messages. His attorney argued that Clampitt had a "reasonable expectation of privacy" when sending text messages to family members, and that the subpoenas were not, in fact, a "sufficient means" to obtaining the records. The court agreed, and the records were suppressed. On January 24, the Missouri Western District Court of Appeals heard the State's appeal of that judgment.
The State's Appeal
Missouri's appeal was built on three basic points:
1. The key issue here is related to the 4th Amendment, which grants citizens protection from unreasonable searches and seizures. In the appeal, the State of Missouri argued that requesting Clampitt's text message records did not violate his 4th Amendment rights. Precedent dictates, the State reasoned, that a defendant must have "a legitimate expectation of privacy in the place or thing searched" in order to be protected by the 4th amendment.
2. Since the text messages were in the possession of Clampitt's relatives, the State held there can be no legitimate expectation of privacy when information is voluntarily given to third parties.
3. Finally, the State argued that the prosecutor was acting in good faith when she requested the records; thus, she met the conditions of the "good faith" exception to the exclusionary rule, which requires that any evidence obtained through unreasonable search or seizure is automatically inadmissible in court.
The Ruling
The court disagreed, denying the appeal and answering each point as follows:
1. The court ruled that citizens do in fact have a reasonable expectation of privacy when they send private text messages, and equated searches of personal email accounts or text messages with placing a wiretap on a phone line.
2. Further, the court cited precedent which establishes that "the mere ability of a third party to access the contents of a communication cannot be sufficient to extinguish a reasonable expectation of privacy." The court maintains that the 4th Amendment was not designed to keep courts from obtaining documentary evidence, and thus subpoenas are not subject to 4th Amendment requirements, as search warrants are. Subpoenas, however, have to be limited in scope and purpose: the court found that the state's hope of finding an admission from Clampitt was simply a "fishing expedition."
3. Finally, the court ruled that the prosecutor did not meet the requirements for the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule, because that exception is meant to apply to police officers who conduct searches, not to a prosecutor's request for information.
The Bottom Line
While criminal courts are beginning to address 4th Amendment concerns with respect to electronic information, civil courts have different standards for evidence. In a personal injury claim, it's not uncommon for attorneys to request - and receive - access to electronic communications (including text messages, email records, Facebook accounts, and so on), if they can demonstrate that they're seeking information that is directly relevant to a claim.
Consider this hypothetical example: say a man files a personal injury lawsuit after he suffers injuries in an auto accident. He claims that his injuries have drastically affected his daily activities. But then the defendant's attorney accesses text messages and Facebook photos that reflect an active social life, depicting the man hosting parties and taking vacations. Such evidence can dramatically impact the nature of a settlement or award for damages.
When you're involved in a Missouri personal injury lawsuit, be careful what you post online, and what you communicate to others electronically. This kind of evidence can have a serious impact on a claimant's credibility.
