When a person voluntarily accepts a "friend" request on Facebook from an undercover police officer, and then exposes incriminating evidence, does the Fourth Amendment protect against this mistaken trust? We conclude that it does not.
Here, the defendant-appellant, Terrance Everett ("Everett"), accepted the friend request from a detective who was using a fictitious profile. The detective then used information gained from such monitoring to obtain a search warrant for Everett's house, where officers discovered evidence that prosecutors subsequently used to convict him.
In the proceedings below, Everett moved for a so-called reverse- Franks hearing, named for the United States Supreme Court opinion in Franks v. Delaware .1 He asked the trial court to determine whether the detective knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, omitted information from the affidavit-namely, information concerning the detective's covert Facebook monitoring-that was material to the magistrate's finding of probable cause. Everett argued that, if he made this showing by a preponderance of the evidence at such a hearing, then the evidence obtained via this warrant should be suppressed. The Superior Court denied Everett's motion from the bench on February 16, 2017. Everett appeals that decision and now seeks reversal of his conviction.
For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM the Superior Court's denial of Everett's motion.
A. Factual Background
At some point during 2012 or 2013, Detective Bradley Landis of the New Castle County Police Department began monitoring Everett's Facebook page using a fake profile, including a fake name and pictures. Detective Landis regularly monitored Everett's page between one to three times per week for at least two years. During this monitoring, Detective Landis used the fake profile to send Everett a "friend request." Everett accepted the "friend request." Based on the record before us, it is unclear what information from Everett's Facebook page was available to Detective Landis before "friending" Everett and what information was available only after the two became "friends."2
*1226On November 4, 2015, Detective Landis saw a photo on Everett's Facebook page that was posted at 5:00 AM that morning. The photo ("Photo") showed a nightstand with several items on top of it: a handgun, a Mercedes car key, a large amount of cash, a pay stub, two cell phones, and a framed photograph of Everett wearing a black T-shirt and a red necklace. Although Everett was not in the Photo, the caption read: "Just getting in for the night, how I sleep every night."3
On that same day, November 4, 2015, Detective Landis applied for a warrant to search Everett's house. In the application, Detective Landis swore that he:
• observed Everett's Facebook page and the Photo "while browsing Facebook";
• knew the Facebook page was Everett's because Everett posted daily self-filmed videos and photographs at various locations, and he was familiar with Everett from previous contacts and criminal investigations;
• personally saw Everett operate a tan Mercedes on multiple occasions;
• was aware that Everett was a person prohibited from possessing deadly weapons, including firearms, due to numerous violent felony convictions;
• was aware that Everett was currently on federal probation for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more than 500 grams of cocaine and cocaine base, and that Everett would be on federal probation until January 2020;
• was aware that Everett was currently being supervised by the Delaware Probation and Parole Sex Crimes unit;
• contacted Everett's probation officer to verify Everett's address and then drove past Everett's residence and observed a tan Mercedes parked out front;
• observed distinguishing features on the handgun upon closer examination of the Photo and, after additional investigation on the Smith & Wesson website, determined that the firearm in the Photo was in fact a Smith & Wesson.
The search warrant, which was both authorized and executed on November 5, 2015, allowed police to conduct a daytime search of Everett's residence to collect DNA samples and/or a deadly weapon. During the search of Everett's home, police recovered a loaded nine-millimeter Smith & Wesson handgun; the handgun's original box with a serial number matching the Smith & Wesson handgun; clothing, including the black T-shirt and the red necklace that Everett was wearing in the Photo and other Facebook photos; and Everett's pay stubs.
Police arrested Everett on November 17, 2015. A Grand Jury indicted him on December 21, 2015, for one count of Possession of a Firearm By a Person Prohibited in violation of 11 Del. C. § 1448, and one count of Possession of Ammunition By a Person Prohibited in violation of 11 Del. C. § 1448. According to the indictment, Everett was a "person prohibited" because he had previously been convicted of two felony counts of Reckless Endangering (first degree) and one felony count of Possession with Intent to Deliver a Controlled *1227Substance.4 A jury trial began on February 14, 2017, and the parties stipulated that Everett was a person prohibited.
On the first day of trial, Detective Landis disclosed that he began monitoring Everett's Facebook page "approximately two years" before he saw the Photo. Further, Detective Landis testified that he monitored Everett's page by using a fake Facebook profile under a fake name and using photos that he found on the Internet, rather than his own personal photos. The day after learning the details of Detective Landis's monitoring of his Facebook page, Everett moved for a mistrial or, in the alternative, a reverse- Franks hearing.5 The Superior Court denied the motion in a bench ruling on February 16, 2017.6 In denying the motion, the trial judge found "that the omitted facts were not material for [the] purposes of issuance of a search warrant."7
On February 16, 2017, the jury found Everett guilty of only one of the charges, Possession of a Firearm By a Person Prohibited, and the Superior Court ordered a presentence investigation. On February 22, 2017, Everett filed a Motion for a New Trial arguing that the two verdicts were legally inconsistent because he was found guilty on the possession charge but not the ammunition charge. The Superior Court denied the motion on May 18, 2017. The State filed a motion to declare Everett a habitual offender, and the Superior Court granted the motion on June 2, 2017. The court sentenced Everett to fifteen years of Level V imprisonment, followed by six months of Level II probation.
B. Scope and Standard of Review
This Court "review[s] a trial court's evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion."8 "Where the facts are not in dispute and only a constitutional claim of probable cause is at issue, this Court's review of the Superior Court's ruling is de novo. "9
C. Analysis
Everett's claim is somewhat convoluted, but his central argument is that Detective Landis's monitoring of his Facebook page constituted an unlawful, warrantless "search" and, thus, any information seized pursuant to it must be suppressed as the fruit of the poisonous *1228tree in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 6 of the Delaware Constitution. However, instead of launching a direct challenge under the search-and-seizure provisions of the United States and Delaware Constitutions, Everett asserts a so-called reverse- Franks claim10 and, as such, argues that the Superior Court erred in denying him a hearing to determine whether Detective Landis knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, omitted information from his warrant affidavit that would have vitiated the magistrate's finding of probable cause-i.e. , that the affidavit omitted material information. That is, Everett argues that, had the authorizing magistrate known about the "arbitrary ruse" that Detective Landis employed via Facebook, the magistrate would have denied the warrant application because the affidavit's facts about Everett's Facebook page were based on an unconstitutional search, and thus any evidence seized under such a warrant should be suppressed.
Despite Everett's awkward framing, we consider his argument for what it is: a claim that Detective Landis's Facebook monitoring violated his constitutional rights and that, without that tainted information, the search warrant affidavit did not establish probable cause.
We evaluate that argument under a two-step framework. First, we consider whether the Facebook monitoring violated the Fourth Amendment or Article I, Section 6 of the Delaware Constitution. If it did, then we "must 'excise the tainted evidence [from the warrant affidavit] and determine whether the remaining, untainted evidence would provide a neutral magistrate with probable cause to issue [the] warrant.' "11 In this case, we need not go beyond the first step: Detective Landis's monitoring of Everett on Facebook did not run afoul of the Fourth Amendment or Article I, Section 6 of the Delaware Constitution.
Everett focuses his arguments on attempting to refute the trial court's conclusion that it was "unable to find any basis in law in support of the proposition that the dissembling conduct of law enforcement would have altered the magistrate's issuance of the search warrant."12 Everett argues that "the trial court reached its erroneous conclusion without considering either Everett's legitimate expectation of privacy in his Facebook posts or the extent of Landis' intrusion upon that legitimate expectation,"13 which is essentially arguing that the trial court ignored a Fourth Amendment or Article I, Section 6 violation. Everett also argues that Detective Landis presented no evidence that the privacy settings of his Facebook page were "set to anything other than 'private.' "
*1229And, given that Detective Landis had "friended" Everett, Everett argues that it is reasonable to assume that his settings were "private" and, as such, the Photo itself was only viewable to his friends and, thus, he had a "legitimate expectation of privacy."14 Finally, he asserts that, even assuming arguendo that his acceptance of Detective Landis's "friend" request amounted to consent, Detective Landis's use of deception rendered that consent involuntary because the detective lacked the reasonable suspicion to monitor him.
We reject Everett's contentions because Everett did not have a reasonable expectation that the Facebook posts that he voluntarily shared with Detective Landis's fake profile and other "friends" would not be disclosed. We observe that Detective Landis did not request or access the Photo directly from Facebook, the third-party service provider-a scenario that we need not address here. Rather, Everett made the Photo accessible to his "friends" and, by doing so, he assumed the risk that one of them might be a government officer or share his information with law enforcement.
The United States and Delaware Constitutions protect the rights of persons to be secure from "unreasonable searches and seizures."15 A search does not occur "unless 'the individual manifested a subjective expectation of privacy in the object of the challenged search,' and 'society [is] willing to recognize that expectation as reasonable.' "16 This test derives from Justice Harlan's concurrence in Katz v. United States ,17 a case in which the majority found that the government violated the defendant's Fourth Amendment rights by installing an electronic listening device on a public telephone booth and recording the defendant's calls-actions that produced evidence leading to the defendant's conviction. Though the majority stressed that "the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places,"18 Justice Harlan nonetheless observed that determining "what protection [the Fourth Amendment] affords to those people" whom it protects "requires reference to a 'place' "-i.e. , evaluation of whether, by intruding on the place in question, the government could be said to have conducted a "search" that is "presumptively unreasonable in the absence of a search warrant."19 Justice Harlan observed that "there is a twofold requirement" for an intrusion on a particular place to qualify as a search-"first that a person have exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy and, second, that the expectation be one that society is prepared to recognize as 'reasonable.' "20 And Justice Harlan *1230explained that, as applied to the placement of the listening device on the public telephone booth, the "critical fact" was that:
'[o]ne who occupies it, (a telephone booth) shuts the door behind him, and pays the toll that permits him to place a call is surely entitled to assume' that his conversation is not being intercepted. The point is not that the booth is 'accessible to the public' at other times, but that it is a temporarily private place whose momentary occupants' expectations of freedom from intrusion are recognized as reasonable.21
Both Justice Harlan and the majority observed that, in contrast, "[w]hat a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection."22
Although Delaware courts have not confronted whether law enforcement officers violate the United States Constitution or the Delaware Constitution by monitoring information that people make accessible to them when they are undercover, or to other Facebook "friends" who are cooperating with law enforcement, cases from other jurisdictions suggest that a Facebook user does not have a reasonable expectation that information that he shares online with his "friends" will not be revealed by them.23
A few federal courts have addressed similar scenarios. In United States v. Meregildo ,24 the government officers viewed the defendant's Facebook profile through the Facebook account of one of his "friends," who was a cooperating witness. The officers learned that the defendant had posted violent messages and threats online, and that information "formed the core of the Government's evidence of probable cause supporting its application for the search warrant."25 The defendant alleged a Fourth Amendment violation given that he "undoubtedly believed that his Facebook profile would not be shared with law enforcement."26 The court acknowledged the defendant's impression but nonetheless found that the defendant "had no justifiable expectation that his 'friends' would keep his profile private" because "those 'friends' were free to use the information however they wanted-including sharing it with the Government."27 Thus, *1231the court found that the government did not violate the Fourth Amendment in obtaining information through the "friend."28
In United States v. Gatson ,29 the defendant accepted an Instagram friend request from an undercover account operated by officers, which allowed the officers to see the defendant's photos and other information. The defendant filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained from his Instagram page arguing "that there was no probable cause to search and seize items" on his Instagram account.30 The court denied the motion, holding that, "[n]o search warrant is required for the consensual sharing of this type of information."31
Meregildo and Gatson reach the same conclusion, but frame the issue slightly differently-and these approaches reflect the two major ways courts have viewed these fact patterns. As in Meregildo , some courts view this issue as follows: by making information available to "B," "A" misplaced his trust in B because B could always give A's information to law enforcement. These courts find that, by trusting B, A took a risk that B would reveal his information to law enforcement and thus could never have had a reasonable expectation of privacy.32 Others (i.e. , Gatson ) frame the situation as such: by approving B's access to A's information, A acted at his peril because B could always be a "false friend" or member of law enforcement, and A "consensual[ly] shared" the information with B.33 These cases acknowledge that A might have had a subjective expectation of privacy, but they seem to suggest that that expectation of privacy was not reasonable given the apparent societal view that the law should not remedy "a wrongdoer's [mistaken] belief that a person to whom he voluntarily confides his wrongdoing will not reveal it."34 Whereas, in Katz , the Supreme Court "held that the Fourth Amendment ... protected Katz because he 'justifiably relied' upon the privacy *1232of the telephone booth,"35 one cannot justifiably rely on others to keep evidence of criminal activity from law enforcement. Though Gatson's reference to "consensual" sharing might be read as implying that A consented to B's access to the information in question, no case that we have found addressing this context expressly says that A gave B "consent." Discussion of "consent" would seem to presuppose that B would have otherwise conducted a "search" of a constitutionally protected area by viewing such information because "consent" is a way to render that intrusion "reasonable" and therefore constitutional.36
Though they do not expressly cite it, the "false friend" cases appear to rely on the logic of Hoffa v. United States ,37 which observed that "no interest legitimately protected by the Fourth Amendment is involved" when the defendant invited a cooperating witness who was wearing a wire into his hotel suite where the witness then recorded defendant's incriminating statements.38 The United States Supreme Court noted that the cooperating witness neither "entered the suite by force or by stealth," nor was he a "surreptitious evesdropper." Rather, the witness "was in the suite by invitation, and every conversation which he heard was either directed at him or knowingly carried on in his presence. The petitioner, in a word, was not relying on the security of the hotel room; he was relying upon his misplaced confidence that [the witness] would not reveal his wrongdoing."39
Though Hoffa preceded Katz , Hoffa was not overruled by Katz .40 Following both Hoffa and Katz , the United States Supreme Court extended this "third party" doctrine to find that one has no reasonable expectation of privacy in certain other information *1233given to third parties, such as records of the telephone numbers one dials (as in Smith v. Maryland )41 or bank records (as in United States v. Miller ).42 However, the applications of the Katz test in these cases have been the focus of much criticism.43 In fact, several state supreme courts, in interpreting their own state laws, have expressly disagreed with those holdings and applied the Katz test to find that society recognizes a reasonable or legitimate expectation of privacy in such circumstances.44 Further, Congress *1234stepped in to grant individuals privacy rights in certain bank records,45 suggesting that at least Congress believed that the Court took too narrow a view of societal expectations of privacy. The United States Supreme Court itself has since limited the third party doctrine in certain areas to suggest, for example, that one may have a reasonable expectation of privacy in certain types of information shared with certain types of people: in Ferguson v. City of Charleston ,46 the Court found that doctors at state hospitals conducted an unreasonable search in violation of the Fourth Amendment by administering a diagnostic test in order to obtain evidence of a patient's criminal drug use for law enforcement purposes where the patient had not consented to the procedure.47 The Court observed that, "[t]he reasonable expectation of privacy enjoyed by the typical patient undergoing diagnostic tests in a hospital is that the results of those tests will not be shared with nonmedical personnel without her consent."48 Scholars have proposed a further limitation on the third-party doctrine to cover information shared with so-called "information fiduciaries"-a "counterparty to whom we entrust 'personal [or] sensitive information' today, and who, because they occupy a status 'analogous to ... traditional ... fiduciaries,' are obligated to use that information in ways that benefit us (or at least, that don't work to our detriment)."49 Moreover, even the Supreme Court itself has questioned how *1235far the third-party doctrine should be carried in this digital era and speculated that a more nuanced approach might be needed to address the complexities posed by modern technology.50
Though Fourth Amendment jurisprudence is in flux as courts try to apply it to new technologies,51 the United States Supreme Court recently has affirmed, in Byrd v. United States , that, in order for there to be a Fourth Amendment violation, the complainant must have had a "property interest" or "reasonable expectation of privacy" under the Katz test in the area where the Fourth Amendment violation is alleged to have occurred.52 Justice Thomas wrote separately in Byrd to express his "serious doubts about the 'reasonable expectation of privacy' test from Katz ." But even he (joined by Justice Gorsuch) joined the Court's opinion because "it correctly navigates our precedents, which no party has asked us to reconsider."53
*1236Here, we need not explore the edges and boundary lines defining a person's legitimate expectation of privacy in information shared with third parties such as Internet providers or social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, and Snapchat. Rather, we resolve the case on narrow grounds-namely, that the Fourth Amendment does not guard against the risk that the person from whom one accepts a "friend request" and to whom one voluntary disclosed such information might turn out to be an undercover officer or a "false friend." One cannot reasonably believe that such "false friends" will not disclose incriminating statements or information to law enforcement-and acts under the risk that one such person might actually be an undercover government agent. And thus, one does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in incriminating information shared with them because that is not an expectation that the United States Supreme Court has said that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable.54
To be clear, there are prohibitions against wiretapping conversations as they are happening absent a court order.55 And the privacy of emails or the servers where they are stored is not at issue. We only hold that, as between Everett and his "false friend," the undercover Detective Landis, Everett assumed the risk that whoever was behind that account was a law enforcement officer, and, thus, there was no reasonable expectation of privacy that shields the incriminating information he shared.
Finally, Everett argues that Detective Landis must have had reasonable suspicion of criminal activity before resorting to "ruse, fabrication, or deception" in obtaining his consent in order for that consent to be considered valid. In Hoffa v. United States , "[t]he argument [was] that [the informant's]
*1237failure to disclose his role as a government informant vitiated the consent that the petitioner gave" for the agent's access to criminal wrongdoing.56 But the United States Supreme Court rejected that argument recognizing that, "[t]he Fourth Amendment does not protect 'a wrongdoer's misplaced belief that a person to whom he voluntarily confides his wrongdoing will not reveal it.' "57 If one allows others to have access to his or her information that contains evidence of criminal wrongdoing, then that person assumes the risk that they might expose that information to law enforcement-or they might be undercover officers themselves.58 As the United States Supreme Court has put it, "[t]he risk of being ... betrayed by an informer or deceived as to the identity of one with whom one deals is probably inherent in the conditions of human society" and "is the kind of risk we necessarily *1238assume whenever we speak."59 In United States v. White ,60 a plurality of the United States Supreme Court followed Hoffa and similarly observed that, "[i]f the law gives no protection to the wrongdoer whose trusted accomplice is or becomes a police agent, neither should it protect him when that same agent has recorded or transmitted the conversations which are later offered in evidence to prove the State's case."61
In sum, we agree with the trial court's conclusion that the Detective's viewing of Everett's Facebook page did not violate the Fourth Amendment or Article I, Section 6 of the Delaware Constitution.
D. Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, we AFFIRM.