←back to thread

Michigan Supreme Court: Unrestricted phone searches violate Fourth Amendment

(reclaimthenet.org)
558 points mikece | 9 comments | 26 Aug 25 17:36 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source | bottom
Show context
duxup ◴[26 Aug 25 17:50 UTC] No.45029937[source]▶
>Michael Carson became the focus of a theft investigation involving money allegedly taken from a neighbor’s safe.

>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.

replies(3): >>45030333 #>>45030529 #>>45030813 #
sidewndr46 ◴[26 Aug 25 18:40 UTC] No.45030529[source]▶
What's more absurd is that a warrant could ever establish such a restriction. If the suspect had a file named "Not evidence of me stealing my neighbor's safe" and "Definitely not a video of me practicing how to break open a safe" would it be fair to assume the warrant doesn't allow access to it?
replies(6): >>45030548 #>>45030683 #>>45030701 #>>45030787 #>>45031342 #>>45031513 #
1. lovich ◴[26 Aug 25 19:53 UTC] No.45031513[source]▶
The warrant is giving special, temporary powers to the police.

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

replies(1): >>45031902 #
2. sidewndr46 ◴[26 Aug 25 20:25 UTC] No.45031902[source]▶
You're not providing examples of any actual restrictions that can be put on a warrant. Is the judge going to give the officers byte offsets to look at on a block device?
replies(3): >>45031954 #>>45032440 #>>45038595 #
3. lovich ◴[26 Aug 25 20:31 UTC] No.45031954[source]▶
The warrant is literally removing restrictions from the police. I don’t know why I would need any examples for someone to be able to understand why that would mechanically mean that the warrant could be written in a way that is not carte Blanche for the police.
4. Ukv ◴[26 Aug 25 21:16 UTC] No.45032440[source]▶
Something like "call logs and text messages sent between 22nd and 26th of August" would be common, to my understanding.
replies(1): >>45032807 #
5. sidewndr46 ◴[26 Aug 25 21:53 UTC] No.45032807{3}[source]▶
Well that's a funny thing, because what is a text message? Does it include RCS? Does it include WhatsApp? What about Telegram?

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

replies(3): >>45033088 #>>45033711 #>>45034202 #
6. Ukv ◴[26 Aug 25 22:21 UTC] No.45033088{4}[source]▶
That there are fuzzy boundaries is not a blocker for a field that is largely built on drawing lines on fuzzy boundaries - a judge can make the determination if necessary.

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.

7. kstrauser ◴[26 Aug 25 23:41 UTC] No.45033711{4}[source]▶
In my albeit limited experience around lawyers and the legal system in general, judges are not amused by clever wordplay. Sometimes they'll entertain specific challenges to specific wordings, but in general the plain, obvious definition of something is the one they'll go with.

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.

8. chowells ◴[27 Aug 25 00:53 UTC] No.45034202{4}[source]▶
The law is not computer code, and this is a feature. Playing word games does not get you out of your legal responsibilities. Was it a text communication in the specified time frame? Then it really doesn't matter what protocol and encodings were used.
9. maxerickson ◴[27 Aug 25 12:13 UTC] No.45038595[source]▶
It doesn't restrict their eyes, it restricts their use of the information.