Introduction

The prosecution's Facebook search warrant requesting "all data contained in [Mr. Nuno's] account" represents a paradigmatic Fourth Amendment violation through an overbroad "fishing expedition" that lacked the constitutional particularity requirement[1][2]. While Bryan Tipp correctly identified this violation in his motion to dismiss, his simultaneous advice against pursuing civil rights claims created a profound ethical contradiction that directly enabled the responsible parties to escape accountability through statute of limitations expiration. This analysis examines the constitutional violations, Tipp's recognition of the illegality, and his professional negligence in failing to protect his client's civil rights.

I. Fourth Amendment Violations in the Facebook Search Warrant

A. Constitutional Requirements for Digital Search Warrants

The Fourth Amendment requires search warrants to "particularly describe... the persons or things to be seized"[2][3]. This particularity requirement serves to "minimize officers' intrusions upon citizens' privacy" and prevents "general, exploratory rummaging in a person's belongings"[2]. As the Supreme Court explained in Marron v. United States, the requirement "makes general searches... impossible and prevents the seizure of one thing under a warrant describing another"[2][3].

For digital evidence, courts have increasingly recognized that the particularity requirement "assumes even greater importance" because technological advances "have rendered the computer hard drive akin to a residence in terms of the scope and quantity of private information it may contain"[4]. Social media accounts like Facebook contain vast amounts of personal information including:

• Private messages and communications
• Political affiliations and "liked" organizations
• Reading habits through shared articles
• Personal views on political, economic, religious, and social issues
• Location data and check-ins
• Photographic evidence of personal relationships[5]

B. The Facebook Warrant as an Unconstitutional Fishing Expedition

The prosecution's warrant seeking "all data contained in [Mr. Nuno's] account" violated multiple constitutional principles:

1. Lack of Particularity

The warrant failed to specify what evidence was sought or how it related to the alleged stalking charges. Research confirms that "a demand for 'all contents of communications' related to a Facebook account is therefore a classically overbroad fishing expedition, rather than a particularized search"[5]. The warrant could have been properly limited by:

• Certain keywords related to the alleged crimes
• Communications with particular individuals (E'Lise Chard)
• Specific time periods related to the alleged conduct