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 … leaves the States free to provide greater rights for its citizens through its Constitution, statutes or rule-making authority."]). Footnote 1: For a concise history of the Fourth Amendment and its importance, see Boyd v United States (116 US 616 [1886]). Footnote 2: Since Mapp v Ohio (367 US 643 [1961]), the Fourth Amendment has applied with equal force to state officials. Footnote 3: A letter addressed to the Convention from then-Governor Herbert Lehman suggested that "we must be ever vigilant to apply to new situations, created by modern conditions, principles that we long ago emblazoned in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of the United States" (Revised Record at 340). A delegate made the analogy explicit, arguing that "originally we had no telephone or telegraph. All communications were personal or by post. No one has ever permitted or advocated the violation of the privacy of our mails. Eavesdropping on personal communications could easily be detected and prevented, and privacy thus assured. Telephone and telegraph, radio and wireless, are more advances and refinements of personal and postal communication. Why are they not entitled to the same protection? How can anyone justify a different rule applicable to them?" (id. at 530). Footnote 4: A delegate explained, "In the country where the party wire is a sort of an institution, it has always been more or less of a diversion to listen in when the bell rings on the neighbors' lines . . . Now, as far as the telegraph is concerned, we take a document down to the telegraph office and we publish it, and unless it is in code there is not much secrecy with reference to that" (Revised Record at 541). A subsequent speaker agreed that "the telephone has never been properly considered a private means of communication, not even for social calls. Not alone are there still party lines, but the central office can cut in, and there is the ever-present possibility of crossed wires, as a result of which conversations are frequently overheard" (Revised Record at 558). Footnote 5: Facebook groups can attract millions of members based on shared interests as anodyne as a sports team or as quintessentially sensitive as a political position. Footnote 6: Although the majority and I disagree on the ultimate disposition of this case, it is important to clarify that we agree certain portions of the Appellate Division's ruling should not be taken to bind the decisions of other courts in this state. Because the majority https://law.justia.com/cases/new-york/court-of-appeals/2017/16.html 37/44