←back to thread

558 points mikece | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
duxup ◴[] 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 #
pcaharrier ◴[] No.45030333[source]
Pretty absurd and sadly common (in my several years' experience working in the criminal justice system). Good for Michigan for putting a stop to it.
replies(1): >>45030542 #
sidewndr46 ◴[] No.45030542[source]
As others have mentioned the courts in Michigan don't have any real authority to stop this. Also in the rare case that someone in law enforcement gets caught doing this sort of thing, the 'punishment' is that they have to promise not to do it again
replies(5): >>45030633 #>>45030851 #>>45031523 #>>45031911 #>>45032369 #
1. EasyMark ◴[] No.45031523{3}[source]
What are you talking about? They have all the rights in the world if it's a Michigan state matter. They are the supreme interpreter of Michigan law in that state, and what 4th amendment rights mean, unless it's taken to federal court. THey obviously can't stop the feds. This decision would allow lawyers to block data outside of a warrants limits being used when it's obvious they ignored the warrant. That is extremely useful if you're representing someone