The Oregon Supreme Court is stepping into a high-stakes fight over whether Meta has to hand over private social media records tied to a Salem homicide, a showdown that could rewrite how criminal defense lawyers get access to digital evidence. The case stems from a Marion County judge’s decision to quash a defense subpoena for location data, message contents, search history and call logs for the victim and a witness. Defendant David Ayon-Urbano argues those records could support his claim that he acted in self-defense after the June 23, 2024, shooting that killed 16-year-old Hector de Jesus Gonzalez Mendoza.
Defense lawyers subpoenaed Meta for geolocation data and communications linked to Instagram accounts associated with the victim and a witness. Meta pushed back, saying federal privacy law blocks it from turning over that information, and the trial court sided with the company by tossing the subpoena. That clash, and the defense appeal that followed, has now landed in front of the Oregon Supreme Court, which must decide whether a criminal defendant’s right to compulsory process can override the federal Stored Communications Act, as reported by KATU.
What the defense says
Ayon-Urbano’s attorneys insist the platform records could show he was lured into a confrontation and that a key witness helped orchestrate the deadly encounter. “The only way we can get this information is through Meta,” defense counsel told a lower court, according to OPB. They argue that the Marion County investigation has turned up sealed files and incomplete phone extractions, which they say makes the social media data central to testing their self-defense theory.
Amicus surge and competing briefs
The case has drawn a wave of national interest. A broad coalition of public defender organizations, innocence projects and law professors filed amicus briefs backing Ayon-Urbano’s position that platform refusals can cripple a defendant’s ability to mount a meaningful defense. On the other side, the U.S. government, along with state and local prosecutors, submitted briefs supporting Meta and arguing that the 1986 Stored Communications Act bars platforms from voluntarily sharing message contents with private parties. The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers has listed the Ayon-Urbano coalition among its amicus filings, and State Court Report notes the unusually heavy government and prosecutorial involvement.
Legal stakes
At the center of the fight is a basic constitutional question: does the Sixth Amendment right to compulsory process let a defendant force a company like Meta to turn over records that the Stored Communications Act would otherwise keep off limits? Courts around the country have split on similar issues, and Oregon’s ruling could either open a clearer lane for defense subpoenas to social media platforms or lock in a stricter rule that such content can be reached only by law enforcement using warrants or government subpoenas. Legal observers told local outlets the outcome could ripple into other states and reshape how trial lawyers think about digital evidence strategy, as KATU explains.
What’s next
Oral argument is scheduled for Tuesday, May 5, before the Oregon Supreme Court, and the justices could take weeks or even months to release a decision. However they rule, public defenders and prosecutors across the country will be watching closely to see whether the opinion triggers a new round of appeals or fast changes in how platforms respond to defense subpoenas, according to State Court Report and local reporting.
