by Danielle Bringard, Associate\u00a0Survey and Symposium Editor\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 We\u2019ve all done it.\u00a0 We\u2019ve all taken the \u201cselfie.\u201d\u00a0 Facebook, Twitter, Tinder, Instagram, and Snapchat are just a few of these social media applications that allow users to transmit photos and videos to each other from various electronic devices.\u00a0 However, unlike most social media sites, Snapchat has a unique feature.\u00a0 Unless a user takes a \u201cscreenshot\u201d of the photo or video while it is being received, than the photo or video is deleted after up to 10 seconds.[1]<\/a>\u00a0<\/p>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The only information you can obtain from Snapchat about a user is: the user\u2019s email, the user\u2019s phone number, the username, a log of the last 200 snaps that have been sent and received, and the date the user created the account.[2]<\/a>\u00a0 The exception being if either the sender or the recipient downloaded the message, kept it saved, and was able to be retrieved from the actual device rather than from the Snapchat application.\u00a0 The Richmond Journal of Law and Technology<\/i> has recently published an article which explores the dangers of Snapchat and sexting,[3]<\/a> but what about the admissibility of a Snapchat history in a court of law?<\/p>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 While there have been no cases specifically dealing with Snapchat, there have evolved two competing theories regarding the authenticity of social media evidence in general.[4]<\/a>\u00a0 First, in the Griffin<\/i> case, the court requires: the testimony of the creator, documentation from the creator\u2019s computer, or information obtained directly from the social media site which would tend to show that the evidence seeking to be admitted was not falsified or created by another person.[5]<\/a>\u00a0 Under the Griffin<\/i> Test, Snapchat could be authenticated with the report from Snapchat Legal which gives the user\u2019s email, phone number and username provided the party seeking admission could show a match with the purported author.\u00a0 Second, in the Tienda<\/i> case, the court will admit social media evidence on a ruling from the judge that a jury could reasonably find that the proffered evidence is authentic.[6]<\/a>\u00a0 Under this ruling authenticity could also easily be established with a report from Snapchat Legal.<\/p>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 While the Griffin<\/i> test appears to be more stringent that the Tienda<\/i> test, both courts examined the content and the context of the social media page seeking admission in making its ruling.\u00a0 Given that requesting the proper authenticating information from Snapchat Legal is no series of hoops to jump through, it is likely that most courts will overrule any objection to the authenticity of a user\u2019s history report from Snapchat Legal.<\/p>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0<\/p>\n [1]<\/a> Snapchat Law Enforcement Guide 3 (last updated Dec. 1, 2012) available at<\/i> http:\/\/www.mrcac.org\/content\/uploads\/2013\/02\/Snapchat_Law_Enforcement_Guide_12112.pdf.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n [2]<\/a> Id.<\/i> at 4.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
\n