Michigan Supreme Court: Unrestricted phone searches violate Fourth Amendment

>Authorities secured a warrant to search his phone, but the document placed no boundaries on what could be examined.

>It permitted access to all data on the device, including messages, photos, contacts, and documents, without any restriction based on time period or relevance. Investigators collected over a thousand pages of information, much of it unrelated to the accusation.

Yeah that's pretty absurd.

Now the downside is that since they rely on the Federal Constitution in the ruling rather than the Michigan one, if the Supreme Court ever rules differently, this precedent will be overturned, even in Michigan.

Absurd or not, it's what the Fourth Amendment requires, at least in spirit. The warrant must specify the scope of the search in advance ("...and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.")

Police work is not supposed to be easy. When police work is easy, that's basically the definition of a police state.

They really didn't like it when cops showed up and took their furniture (think filing cabinet) because "it might contain evidence of sedition".

No, this is silly. That's not how search warrants ever work. The Fourth Amendment imposes no such "only search where labeled" requirement. It does, however, mean that police can only search areas where they are likely to find evidence of the commission of the crime that is alleged in the affidavit. For example, if the crime is theft of a full-size refrigerator and police have probable cause to believe that the stolen refrigerator is located at the residence of the accused, they can go into his house and look for the refrigerator anywhere that a refrigerator could be. That does not, however, given them the right to go rifling through his file cabinet or his underwear drawer, unless they have specific, articulable facts (i.e., not just a hunch) that there is probable cause that some other evidence of the commission of that crime will be found in such places.

What does that look like when searching a suspect's cell phone? Obviously every case is going to be different, but the point is that warrants cannot be utterly boundless. Such "general warrants" are one of the reasons the American colonists listed as a grievance against King George in the Declaration of Independence and today issuing such warrants would be considered prosecutable malfeasance in office. if police want to use search warrants as evidence-gathering tools they have to follow the law or convince the legislature to change it.

EDIT: Actually, consider this as an example.

California Penal Code § 653m says the following (subsection b): "Every person who, with intent to annoy or harass, makes repeated telephone calls or makes repeated contact by means of an electronic communication device, or makes any combination of calls or contact, to another person is, whether or not conversation ensues from making the telephone call or contact by means of an electronic communication device, guilty of a misdemeanor. Nothing in this subdivision shall apply to telephone calls or electronic contacts made in good faith or during the ordinary course and scope of business."

So let's say jilted boyfriend decides to ring up his ex-girlfriend a couple dozen times in the wee hours of the morning, but he uses something to block his caller ID. In that case, there might be evidence on his phone that he dialed the girlfriend's phone number when she claims the harassing phone calls came in. So can the police search his phone for evidence that he called her number? Absolutely. Can they look through everything on his phone (pictures, notes, settings, etc.)? Absolutely not.

Who has said this? People are saying that a ruling of the Michigan Supreme Court won't stop Michigan police officers from getting search warrants without limitations? How did these people come to that conclusion?

"Our state Constitution, Const 1963, art 1, § 11, also guards against unreasonable searches and seizures. In fact, as amended by voter initiative in the 2020 general election, Const 1963, art 1, § 11 specifically provides that “[n]o warrant to . . . access electronic data or electronic communications shall issue without describing them . . . .” However, defendant’s claims below rested solely on Fourth Amendment principles. Therefore, we have no occasion to consider whether the language of Const 1963, art 1, § 11 provides broader protection than the Fourth Amendment in this context. Compare People v Lucynski, 509 Mich 618, 634 n 6; 983 NW2d 827 (2022) (noting that Const 1963, art 1, § 11 is interpreted coextensively with the Fourth Amendment unless there is a compelling reason for a different interpretation), with People v Bullock, 440 Mich 15, 30-31; 485 NW2d 866 (1992) (concluding that a textual difference between the Eighth Amendment and Const 1963, art 1, § 16 supported a broader interpretation of our state constitutional provision)."

So really the downside is that the defendant's lawyer didn't raise the state constitutional issue (which looks even clearer).

Warrants establish such restrictions all the time. The classic example is what's called the sugar bowl doctrine. In a nutshell: if you're looking for stolen televisions you can't look in the sugar bowl. If, to torture the metaphor further, you see car keys peaking out of the top of the sugar bowl you can apply for a further warrant. In the case of forensically investigating a phone, you would just keep the forensically-sound copy of the phone's data while you waited for a judge's permission to poke around in that folder.

How do you think a warrant couldn’t establish such restrictions when it’s already loosening existing restrictions on the police?

You know, if you're a Homeland Security agent you have to tell us, right?

Someone tell me how many prosecutors in the history of the USA have been criminally convicted for sending known innocent persons to prison.

You also seem to be operating from a standpoint that because I am subject to a search, there exists evidence of me committing a crime. That's a pretty slippery slope from where I'm standing.

I made a text file and emailed it to my boss a few weeks back, is that a "text" ?

My answer would be: yes "text messages" includes RCS as well as SMS, but not whatsapp/telegram/an email attachment, and that the warrant should've been more specific if it wanted the latter - but ask your lawyer if you're uncertain what's being requested.

If a suspect is alleged to have been on the phone with an accomplice while committing a crime then a warrant for call logs during that time period would be appropriate, but not just open-ended trawling through all the suspect's devices for potential clues, is my understanding.

A text message is something in Messages.app or the Google equivalent. It may include a message in Signal or WhatsApp, but I suspect they'd want to see some case precedence supporting that. It almost certainly isn't a screenshot in their photos app, or a message written in text in the notes app, or Aretha Franklin spelling out R-E-S-P-E-C-T in the music app.

It's a message in the phone's commonly used messaging app. Anything much beyond that is likely to earn a scolding from an unimpressed judge.

Interactions with the police, in any capacity at all, are uncommon.

It has been argued successfully that giving biometrics is analogous to giving blood, hair, fingerprints, standing in a lineup, providing a writing sample, or wearing certain clothes, all of which you can be compelled to do.

From my understanding, the current split about being compelled to provide passcodes, and to a much lesser extent biometrics, is the foregone conclusion exception stemming from the Fisher v. United States [1] case, where, as Justice White said “the existence and locations of the papers[were] a foregone conclusion and the [defendant’s physical act] adds little or nothing to the sum total of the Government’s information by conceding that he in fact has the papers… [And so] no constitutional rights [were] touched. The question [was] not of testimony but of surrender.”

This has been used in relation to court cases on biometrics and passcodes [2]. It appears that courts that rule that you can be compelled seem to look narrowly at the passcode itself i.e. the government knows you own the phone and knows you know how to unlock it, so it is a foregone conclusion to provide it. Courts that rule you cannot be compelled seem to look at the phones contents i.e. the government does not know what is on the phone so decrypting the data would be providing protected testimony, or a stricter interpretation that you cannot be compelled to disclose the contents of the mind. The Supreme Court has declined multiple times to hear cases that would help settle the legal ambiguity, so it remains an evolving issue.

In short, a passcode is not a panacea and you may be compelled to provide it.

[1] https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2024/04/17/2...

[2] https://www.barclaydamon.com/webfiles/Publications/Unlock-De...