Technology

Florida Lawmakers Cite Above The Law As Legal Precedent... Oh No.

You can serve someone via Twitter, but there’s more to it than just sending a Tweet.

By  
on

If only this had happened before I delivered my recent CLE presentation at the New York State Bar Association. I spoke about Social Media and the Law and had a whole section on the phenomenon of serving process over Twitter. Little did I know, two weeks later I would be cited as an expert on this whole process and have a little case study to discuss.

The Florida House of Representatives recently launched an investigation of the Florida Coalition Against Domestic Violence. The organization’s former chief, Tiffany Carr, collected millions in taxpayer funds, but reportedly pocketed $7.5 million for herself, raising questions of mismanagement at the non-profit. When the House voted to subpoena Carr last month, it began its effort to serve her, only to find she’d disappeared.

Yesterday, the House took the unorthodox step of serving the subpoena via Twitter:

The move raised questions among observers wondering if this was even legal. House spokesperson Fred Piccolo Jr. responded to critics citing the highest legal authority imaginable — Above the Law:

Welp, there you have it folks. That said, I’m not entirely sure this particular Tweet holds up. It might, but there may be more court maneuvering before this is all over.

Sponsored

Under the Federal Rules, Rule 4(f)(3) provides for alternative forms of service that the court deems “reasonably calculated, under all circumstances to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.” This is how the Wikileaks Tweet was blessed under the law.

Though a critical factor in the Wikileaks Tweet was the fact that plaintiffs showed that the Wikileaks account was actively monitored and that the subject of the action was definitely the person monitoring the account. But Carr resigned as head of the organization so tagging that agency wouldn’t guarantee that she would be aware of the Tweet. There is no personal handle being “at-ed” here. Courts might have concerns that the Tweet wasn’t reasonably calculated to apprise Carr. Indeed the media coverage about the Tweet might have reached her before the Tweet did.

Also, I’m no expert in Florida law, but I’m not sure there’s a corollary for Rule 4(f)(3). Rule 1.070 covers process and it appears the rule authorizes personal service, service by mail, and service by publication (governed by statute, Title VI, Chapter 49) but those rules seem very narrowly construed. There just doesn’t seem to be the sort of “catch-all” provision that Rule 4(f)(3) provides.

Perhaps the House should get on creating that provision!

Service by Twitter is very real, but it’s not as simple as throwing a notice into the Twittersphere. Whether the Florida House managed to effectively serve Carr yesterday is going to require a little more scrutiny than it may have appeared at first glance.

Sponsored

Disgraced nonprofit CEO served a subpoena via Twitter by Florida House [South Florida Sun-Sentinel]

Earlier: Can You Serve A Subpoena Over Twitter? Yes, And It Just Happened To WikiLeaks

HeadshotJoe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.

CRM Banner

Topics

,