## Facts

- D.C. was robbed in a San Diego parking lot by a group of five men who took, among other items, a gold-chain necklace.
- D.C. reported one robber had a facial scar and yelled “This is West Coast!” during the robbery.
- A gang-unit detective suspected Chaz Nasjhee Pride, who had a facial scar.
- The detective used an undercover social-media account and sent Pride a “friend” request, which Pride accepted.
- After being accepted as a “friend,” the detective accessed a video Pride shared with his “friends,” in which Pride wore a gold chain resembling the stolen necklace and made an incriminating statement about the chain.
- Pride moved to suppress the video, arguing unlawful warrantless acquisition under the Fourth Amendment and the California Electronic Communications Privacy Act (CalECPA).
- The trial court denied suppression; a jury convicted Pride of robbery and found a gang enhancement true.
- The sentence included a five-year serious-felony prior enhancement under Penal Code § 667(a)(1).

## Issues

1. Whether a defendant has a reasonable expectation of privacy, under the Fourth Amendment, in a social-media video shared with “friends” when an undercover officer gains access by being accepted as a “friend.”
2. Whether an officer’s warrantless viewing and saving of such a “friends”-shared video violates CalECPA (Penal Code § 1546 et seq.).
3. Whether Senate Bill 1393 applies retroactively to nonfinal cases, requiring remand to allow the trial court discretion to strike a Penal Code § 667(a)(1) enhancement.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the conviction and the denial of the suppression motion.
- The court held there was no Fourth Amendment violation because Pride voluntarily shared the video with his “friends” and assumed the risk that a recipient could be a government agent or could disclose the content to law enforcement.
- The court held there was no CalECPA violation because officers did not compel a service provider to disclose information and did not access Pride’s device; they viewed content Pride voluntarily made available to the undercover “friend” account.
- The court remanded for resentencing to allow the trial court to exercise discretion, under SB 1393, to strike or dismiss the five-year serious-felony prior enhancement.

## Legal Principles

- A social-media user generally lacks a reasonable expectation of privacy in content voluntarily shared with a defined audience of “friends,” because the user assumes the risk that an authorized recipient is a government agent or will retransmit the information.
- When officers access social-media content using permissions voluntarily granted by the user (e.g., acceptance of a “friend” request), that access is treated like obtaining information from a consenting recipient rather than a warrantless intrusion into a protected area.
- CalECPA targets government compulsion or unauthorized acquisition of electronic information; it is not violated where officers merely view and preserve content made available to them as authorized recipients, without compelled disclosure from a provider or device access.
- Ameliorative sentencing changes that grant new discretion to strike enhancements apply retroactively to nonfinal judgments, requiring remand for the trial court to exercise that discretion.

## Conclusion

The court held that an undercover officer’s warrantless viewing of a video shared with “friends” did not constitute a Fourth Amendment search and did not violate CalECPA, but remanded for resentencing so the trial court could decide whether to strike the five-year serious-felony prior enhancement under SB 1393.


People v. Pride, 31 Cal. App. 5th 133, 242 Cal. Rptr. 3d 297 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019)