←back to thread

Michigan Supreme Court: Unrestricted phone searches violate Fourth Amendment

(reclaimthenet.org)
558 points mikece | 1 comments | 26 Aug 25 17:36 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
pcaharrier ◴[26 Aug 25 18:22 UTC] No.45030323[source]▶
Several years ago I had the opportunity to observe when a detective came to a magistrate's office to petition for a search warrant. The warrant sought to search the contents of a person's phone, essentially without any limitations. The alleged crime was assault and battery on a family member. When asked "What is your probable cause that the phone is likely to contain evidence of the commission of this crime?" the detective had basically nothing to say (having put nothing to that effect in the affidavit for the search warrant) other than some vague (cooked up on the spot?) statements about the "mobile nature of our modern society and the fact that cell phones are everywhere and everyone has one." The magistrate denied the warrant, but it's a sad testament to the propensity of law enforcement to cut corners that that search warrant affidavit was far from the last one I saw that targeted the cell phone of an accused and claimed that it was necessary to search the entire contents of the phone.
replies(6): >>45030727 #>>45031459 #>>45033489 #>>45033562 #>>45033784 #>>45035818 #
righthand ◴[26 Aug 25 18:58 UTC] No.45030727[source]▶
That’s because law enforcement is encourage to give least amount of effort to find any kind of damning evidence that a DA can use. The detective doesn’t care about justice but instead closing the case. If I have access to your entire phone, I can use anything I find against you as probable cause whether it’s related to the crime or not.
replies(5): >>45030840 #>>45031311 #>>45031869 #>>45032210 #>>45033422 #
LadyCailin ◴[26 Aug 25 23:06 UTC] No.45033422[source]▶
This is why you don’t talk to the police, ESPECIALLY if you’re innocent. Anything you say can and will be used against you. Never to help you. If you’re guilty, and you get found guilty because you accidentally confessed, who cares, you were guilty. If you were innocent, and you accidentally confessed, that is in fact a miscarriage of justice, but the police and courts don’t actually care about justice, if they did, the system would look massively different.
replies(1): >>45034547 #
0xDEAFBEAD ◴[27 Aug 25 01:45 UTC] No.45034547[source]▶
>the police and courts don’t actually care about justice, if they did, the system would look massively different.

Seems overly cynical. How about public defenders, Miranda rights, etc.?

The US court system is set up to be adversarial. The belief is that you get the best overall outcome by having one set of people who try to convict, and another set of people who try to acquit.

One can also make the system look bad from the other direction by arguing that public defenders are terrible, because their job is to help criminals walk free. https://xcancel.com/katanaspeaks/status/1954636840272884111

You're welcome to argue against the overall concept of an adversarial court system. But the system has to be taken in total, rather than selectively focusing on one side.

replies(3): >>45037721 #>>45037724 #>>45040851 #
1. mapt ◴[27 Aug 25 15:14 UTC] No.45040851[source]▶
In the US, public defenders may try 1000 cases a year, may not meet you until five minutes before the initial plea, may have essentially zero investigative capability. Court cases may take years to arise, bail may be effectively denied by virtue of economics, and the plea bargain offered is often <5% of the sentence sought, while being the ultimate way of settling nearly every case.

Arguing for the merits of an adversarial system is one thing. But many parts of due process are effectively completely dead for the vast majority of defendants, and prosecutorial discretion rules the justice system almost completely for those of us who aren't millionaires. "Adversarial" might work for OJ Simpson, but it hasn't worked for most of us for a long time, and the US prison system holds the most prisoners per capita in the world - it isn't close†.

Defenders of the shortcuts we have created proudly justify it as saving the taxpayer money; of making workable a situation where they feel they are underfunded by an order of magnitude, but the reality is that it is justice amputated of essential components. If you want to save money, maybe consider making fewer things illegal, and imprisoning people for a shorter amount of time, but go back to actually holding real, speedy trials that are effectively adversarial in nature. In the meantime, we have a judge/jury/executioner in the DA's office, and they get re-elected electorally largely based on their conviction rate; Like shooting fish in a barrel.

†Depending on how you view internment camps for specific minorities