03/02/2020 In re 381 Search Warrants Directed to Facebook, Inc. :: 2017 :: New York Court of Appeals Decisions :: New York Case Law :: New York Law :: US … herein (see Cayuga, 14 NY3d at 634-635). Likewise, our ultimate holding in Matter of B.T. Prods. v Barr (44 NY2d 226 [1978]) does nothing to undermine our current assertion that a search warrant commences a criminal proceeding. There, the Court held that, although " [i]n most cases, prohibition will not be available to challenge the validity of a search warrant," such remedy may be available where the challenge "goes to jurisdiction rather than simply to the existence of probable cause in a particular situation" (id. at 233). The arguments raised by Facebook do not implicate the extraordinary and limited remedy of prohibition, as there is no question that Supreme Court had jurisdiction to issue the search warrants at issue here. Footnote 5: While Facebook may have alleged that the materials sought by the warrants were unusually voluminous, Facebook made no argument below that the warrants imposed any type of administrative burden on it with respect to compliance. At the trial level, Facebook sought only to challenge the warrant on constitutional grounds and alleged voluminosity only in the context of its overbreadth argument. Footnote 6: The dissent's point that a motion to quash an SCA warrant may not always seek to raise an argument attacking the warrant on constitutional grounds is of no moment. That such relief may be sought is sufficient to aid us in determining that the matter at hand is a criminal one. Furthermore, the dissent's assertion that Facebook's standing to raise Fourth Amendment claims "has nothing to do with criminal law" ignores that other courts have found the issue of third party standing in the Fourth Amendment context more complex (see e.g. Microsoft Corp. v United States Dept. of Justice, C16-0538JLR, 2017 WL 530353, at *15 [WD Wash Feb. 8, 2017]; see also Alderman v United States, 394 US 165 [1969]; Rakas v Illinois, 439 US 128 [1978]). Nevertheless, we take no position on the merits of that issue, as it is not properly before us. Footnote 7: Notably, the parties to the appeal before us do not raise a preemption argument. This Court generally refrains from addressing issues not argued by the parties, as we have recognized that, to do otherwise, would be unfair to the litigants, "who expect us to decide their appeals on rationales advanced by the parties, not arguments their adversaries never made" (Misicki v Caradonna, 12 NY3d 511, 519 [2009]). Footnote 8: To be sure, federal courts have also recognized an exception to the principle requiring that a party be found in contempt to obtain a final judgment "[i]n the limited class of cases where denial of immediate review would render impossible any review whatsoever of an individual's claims" (United States v Ryan, 402 US 530, 533 [1971]). https://law.justia.com/cases/new-york/court-of-appeals/2017/16.html 35/44