Nevada court: State did not violate minor’s rights

CARSON CITY — The Nevada Supreme Court has ruled that the constitutional rights of a North Las Vegas minor who posted a threat of violence on his Facebook page were not violated when a Family Court judge found him to be a delinquent.

The minor, identified only as Marcus C., had written: “Killing spree by myself. I got four clips that hold seventeen and five hundred bullets. And I don’t give a f—- no more.”

North Las Vegas police, who were monitoring the Facebook pages of about 130 people by befriending them under a fictitious name, saw the two-day-old post. M.C. was arrested after a search of his house revealed no weapons.

Officer Richard Arnold testified that M.C. referred to himself as “Murder Man” and claimed an affiliation with the 004 Hoodsman street gang.

M.C. said he was not serious and wrote the post because he was upset after fighting with his girlfriend.

He was charged with making a terrorist threat. A hearing master recommended that M.C. be adjudicated as a delinquent, a finding upheld by Family Court Judge William Voy.

M.C. appealed, arguing that his Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches was violated when police monitored his Facebook account. He also said the First Amendment required the state to prove he subjectively intended to make a threat when he made the post.

But a three-judge panel of the Supreme Court rejected his arguments.

On the Fourth Amendment claim, the court said M.C. lost any objectively reasonable expectation of privacy as soon as he released his post to a third party: his Facebook friends.

On the First Amendment claim, the court said that while the right of free speech cannot be abridged, the state can criminalize “true threats” without violating the Constitution.

The court noted that it is currently unclear whether the First Amendment allows states to punish a speaker for speech that, although threatening, was not subjectively intended to be threatening. While this is an important issue, it is not material to M.C.’s case, the court said.

In this case, the court said the hearing master’s findings of fact concluded that M.C. intended to alarm or intimidate others, cause panic or civil unrest and interfere with police operations.

“As such, the state did not violate M.C.’s First Amendment rights by punishing his online speech,” the court said.

Contact Sean Whaley at swhaley@reviewjournal.com or 775-687-3900. Find him on Twitter: @seanw801.