Is it constitutional

One thing that people try to throw at police is that the way they got the information to convict them was unconstitutional. In my opinion which leans to guilty until proven innocent thinks that it shouldn't matter how the information was obtained.

That being said the court system has the complete opposite opinion of myself. They see it as innocent until proven guilty and it does matter how the information was acquired. Although we have differing opinions one thing that I think the court does an alright job in doing is interpreting the constitution.

In the case of Colon, the alleged gang member, his attorneys claimed his Facebook posts were protected under the Fourth Amendment, which shields people's homes and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. But a federal judge disagreed, saying Colon forfeited any expectation of privacy when he shared online postings with friends.

In other words, the online world is just like the offline world in many respects: Your friends can inform on you to police, and detectives can go undercover to catch you in the act.

In some cases police get caught by the fact their evidence was recovered unconstitutionally, which makes the evidence inadmissible and causes the police to either scramble or have no case at all allowing the criminals to get away with the charges.

The moral of the story is to be careful how you do things officers.