Meta spars with Oregon shooting suspect over social media privacy before state Supreme Court

SALEM, Ore. (CN) — The question of whether or not social media giant Meta will have to turn over internal user messages in an Oregon homicide case came before the state’s highest court on Tuesday, as attorneys sparred over privacy regulations.

“Our courts do not let trials happen in violation of fundamental constitutional rights,” said Rian Peck, defense attorney with Visible Law.

Prosecutors say David Ayon-Urbano fatally shot Hector de Jesus Gonzalez Mendoza on a June night in 2024 on the outskirts of Salem. Both were teenagers at the time of the shooting, and two teenage girls witnessed the shooting.

Ayon-Urbano is seeking geolocation data, messages and call information from Meta that relate to the social media accounts of Gonzalez Mendoza and one of the teenage girl witnesses — records he argues are crucial to his defense. Should he be convicted of second-degree murder, Ayon-Urbano faces a potential life sentence.

Ayon-Urbano and Gonzalez Mendoza were members of rival gangs and Ayon-Urbano was reportedly mourning the loss of a friend killed by the rival gang. According to the defense theory, Gonzalez Mendoza colluded with one of the teenage girls to arrange a surprise encounter with Ayon-Urbano, resulting in Gonzalez Mendoza’s death. Messages from the teenage girl and Gonzalez Mendoza’s Instagram accounts could support this theory, Peck argues.

The trial court quashed the subpoena, prompting Ayon-Urbano to appeal to the state’s highest court. Before the Oregon Supreme Court on Tuesday, his defense attorney argued the problem could be easily resolved.

“There’s no meaningful dispute that Meta has Instagram messages and records that go to the heart of relator’s theory of self-defense,” Peck said. “If the state wanted to, it could get those records from Meta with relative ease.”

The trial court concluded the Stored Communications Act barred Ayon-Urbano from accessing electronic communications from Meta, but not if the state had requested the same information. Ayon-Urbano argues that such a conclusion violated his right to compulsory process under both the state and federal Constitutions.

But the high court questioned why it should interfere with a pretrial discovery dispute.

“When discovery has not been ordered, we don’t have a long track record of exercising our mandamus power in that posture,” Justice Bronson James said. “ Why is mandamus first available here at all, and even if it is available, would be a proper exercise of this court’s discretionary power in this case?”

To Ayon-Urbano, the matter is not merely a discovery dispute.

“This is about a constitutional right,” Peck said. “Relator either has it or he doesn’t, and it applies pretrial and allows him to investigate and prepare his defense so he can have a complete defense in this case.”

While the defense team has access to the two phones — one from Gonzalez Mendoza and one from one of the teenage girls — it is seeking records and data relating to four Instagram accounts associated with the phones that it says it cannot fully access without assistance from Meta.

The messages contained within those Instagram accounts are the most reliable evidence that Ayon-Urbano acted in self-defense, Peck argued.

“These messages cannot lie,” Peck said. “These messages do not have motive and bias to lie on the witness stand, and these messages can be used to impeach a critical state’s witness, one of the two eyewitnesses who were there at the scene.”

However, Meta sees the case differently. According to the social media giant, Ayon-Urbano’s request is an attempt to conduct searches and seizures on equal footing with the government.

“What this court has picked up on in the questioning is that the record below is quite simply not ripe for this court to consider,” argued Sarah Crooks, attorney with Perkins Coie representing Meta.

Meta argued that the Stored Communications Act limitations are narrow and don’t completely hinder Ayon-Urbano’s ability to present a defense.

“It is simply Congress’ well-reasoned determination that there needed to be privacy protections for account holders of information that is stored, confidential communications, just communications,” Crooks said.

Meta also argued the act prevents it from sharing the information the defense is seeking without the consent of the account holders. When questioned by the justices, Crooks told the court Meta is retaining the data sought by Ayon-Urbano in case it is ordered to release it.

Oregon pointed to Meta’s promise to undercut Ayon-Urbano’s argument, contending that he has not demonstrated any irretrievable loss of information. The state argued the appeal was premature.

“We assume that there are communications because we do know that the witness and the victim communicated via Instagram,” Leigh Salmon with the Oregon Department of Justice argued. “But the idea that this information, the contents of those communications are material to the defense is entirely speculative at this point.”

Oregon Supreme Court Justice Stephen Bushong questioned the state whether it had ever asked Meta for the information itself. Oregon’s position is that the requested information doesn’t meet the criteria under the Stored Communications Act.

“It is critical that we dismiss the alternative writ and allow this case to proceed so that we can develop a record and understand better what this information might be in the context of the case itself,” Salmon said.

Ayon-Urbano argued that taking a “wait and see” approach would be harmful.

“The trial would just go completely differently if he had access to this information versus if he didn’t have access to this information,” Peck said. “But we will never really know what the gap is with the lack of access to the information.”

The Oregon Supreme Court did not indicate when it would rule.