18 ms·

Michigan Supreme Court: Unrestricted phone searches violate Fourth Amendment

564 points by mikece 1y ago

tobinc 1y ago
Oh cool so I'm sure we'll see fines or imprisonments or something right?
- nozzlegear 1y ago
  No, you'll see illegally gathered evidence thrown out, and the prosecutor could be in real danger of losing their case too if that's all they had to go on.
- qingcharles 1y ago
  Exactly. This has literally never happened for overbroad searches.
duxup 1y ago
>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.
- pcaharrier 1y ago
  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.
  - sidewndr46 1y ago
    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
    - mrkstu 1y ago
      They can stop Michigan judges from granting warrants that fall within this scope, which should stop 90%+ of the problem within their purview. 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.
      - pcaharrier 1y ago
        They hinted at the issue in footnote 11: "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).
        lokar 1y ago
        They were probably hoping to build towards a nationwide rule
- sidewndr46 1y ago
  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?
  - SamoyedFurFluff 1y ago
    I mean, at minimum I doubt anything on his phone is relevant from a year, two years ago.
    - pcaharrier 1y ago
      This a good point too. Information can become "stale" to the point that it's no longer enough to support a search warrant or a conviction. One example of such a holding here (though the defendant lost the motion to suppress on other grounds): https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3002057/united-states-v-prideaux-wentz-gary/ https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3002057/united-states-...
  - CamperBob2 1y ago
    What's more absurd is that a warrant could ever establish such a restriction. 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.
  - lesuorac 1y ago
    If the warrant doesn't have a restrictions on it then it's a "General Warrant" and that was a major complaint of the founders of the USA. They really didn't like it when cops showed up and took their furniture (think filing cabinet) because "it might contain evidence of sedition".
  - pcaharrier 1y ago
    >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? 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.
- strathmeyer 1y ago
  A good HackerNews poll would be to ask how many people have had their phones cloned by the police, I didn't know it was uncommon. I guess they've stopped since phones are encrypted.
  - qingcharles 1y ago
    Don't secure your phone with face or fingerprint scan as it is lawful in the USA to force you to open it in those instances.
    - 542354234235 1y ago
      It is actually more complicated than that and being forced to provide a passcode is also legal precedent, but both biometrics and passcodes are still open legal questions. 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/2024/04/17/22-50262.pdf https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2024/04/17/2... [2] https://www.barclaydamon.com/webfiles/Publications/Unlock-Devices-Law-Chart-1.pdf https://www.barclaydamon.com/webfiles/Publications/Unlock-De...
claytongulick 1y ago
Sudden outbreak of common sense.
dekken_ 1y ago
Now do facial recognition surveillance cameras
ranger_danger 1y ago
FYI The entire state of Michigan falls within the 100-mile border zone, where searches do not have as much protection: https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/border-zone https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/border-zone Also friendly reminder that "the Constitution does not grant aliens any protections when trying to enter the United States." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_ex_rel._Knauff_v._Shaughnessy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_ex_rel._Knauff_v...
- tptacek 1y ago
  The 100-mile border zone thing is a myth ACLU uses to fundraise. There have been SCOTUS cases knocking the idea down. There has to be some nexus to an actual border crossing for "border zone" rules to apply. About the most it seems the government can sustainably do is set up fixed checkpoints, and even those are legally problematic. This comes up on HN several times a year; there are longer discussions about it available in the search bar.
  - ranger_danger 1y ago
    How is it a myth? https://www.snopes.com/news/2022/06/13/what-is-usa-border-enforcement-zone/ https://www.snopes.com/news/2022/06/13/what-is-usa-border-en... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception https://www.pennstatelawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/3-Anthony-100-Mile-Zone.pdf https://www.pennstatelawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/0... https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1032&context=sjlcr https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?ar... https://www.truthorfiction.com/supreme-court-100-miles-border-ruling/ https://www.truthorfiction.com/supreme-court-100-miles-borde... https://brownpoliticalreview.org/constitution-100-miles-questionable-nature-u-s-interior-checkpoints/ https://brownpoliticalreview.org/constitution-100-miles-ques... https://ballsandstrikes.org/legal-culture/border-patrol-100-mile-zone-explainer/ https://ballsandstrikes.org/legal-culture/border-patrol-100-...
    - tptacek 1y ago
      Read the Penn State Law Review article you just pasted. Nobody's questioning whether CBP itself acts abusively within the US. As the law review article observes, CBP's abuses have little to do with the "100 mile" thing; they detained Sen. Patrick Leahy by the side of the road more than 100 miles way from any nominal border. The article goes into great detail about what the courts have authorized; it's nothing like ACLU's claim. This is one area in which I think ACLU's advocacy is actively harmful: they're convincing people that the USG has statutory authorization to do things, things they actually do, for which they in fact have no authorization.
pcaharrier 1y ago
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.
- righthand 1y ago
  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.
  - pcaharrier 1y ago
    > 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. Well, that gets into the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine, but we're not doing a full criminal procedure law school course today . . . Ironically, I heard more than one detective say that when they "dumped" a phone like that, they rarely found much useful evidence. There's just too much information on any given cell phone to be able to go through it all. So, in the end, their fishing expeditions end up being a waste of time and resources.
    - 0cf8612b2e1e 1y ago
      If they have a warrant to the phone, what is poisoned fruit? It only becomes tainted evidence if they eg) stole the phone and rifled through it.
daft_pink 1y ago
It’s sad that it’s the Michigan Supreme Court and not a federal court :(
- mikece 1y ago
  Oh there's still a chance this is appealed to and overturned by SCOTUS....
Johnny555 1y ago
>A four-justice majority agreed. They emphasized that digital search warrants must be precise, listing exactly what investigators are seeking and explaining why those specific data types or timeframes are relevant How do they limit the police to what was in the warrant? How do they prevent them police from searching the entire phone, and if they find something else incriminating, use parallel construction to find other evidence that justifies a warrant for a broader phone search? "We didn't find anything in our initial phone search, but now we have an informant that told us to look at his email in November last year"
WhyNotHugo 1y ago
Note that the Fourth Amendment applies only to residents of the US [1], but not to the other 99.5% of the human population. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Verdugo-Urquidez https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Verdugo-Urqui...
- myroon5 1y ago
  nitpick tangent: 95.X%, not 99.5%
- theandrewbailey 1y ago
  Unfortunately, this ruling only applies to Michigan, not the federal level.

564 points by mikece 1y ago

tobinc 1y ago

Oh cool so I'm sure we'll see fines or imprisonments or something right?

nozzlegear 1y ago
No, you'll see illegally gathered evidence thrown out, and the prosecutor could be in real danger of losing their case too if that's all they had to go on.
qingcharles 1y ago
Exactly. This has literally never happened for overbroad searches.

duxup 1y ago

>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.

pcaharrier 1y ago
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.
- sidewndr46 1y ago
  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
  - mrkstu 1y ago
    They can stop Michigan judges from granting warrants that fall within this scope, which should stop 90%+ of the problem within their purview. 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.
    - pcaharrier 1y ago
      They hinted at the issue in footnote 11: "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).
      - lokar 1y ago
        They were probably hoping to build towards a nationwide rule
sidewndr46 1y ago
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?
- SamoyedFurFluff 1y ago
  I mean, at minimum I doubt anything on his phone is relevant from a year, two years ago.
  - pcaharrier 1y ago
    This a good point too. Information can become "stale" to the point that it's no longer enough to support a search warrant or a conviction. One example of such a holding here (though the defendant lost the motion to suppress on other grounds): https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3002057/united-states-v-prideaux-wentz-gary/ https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3002057/united-states-...
- CamperBob2 1y ago
  What's more absurd is that a warrant could ever establish such a restriction. 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.
- lesuorac 1y ago
  If the warrant doesn't have a restrictions on it then it's a "General Warrant" and that was a major complaint of the founders of the USA. They really didn't like it when cops showed up and took their furniture (think filing cabinet) because "it might contain evidence of sedition".
- pcaharrier 1y ago
  >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? 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.
strathmeyer 1y ago
A good HackerNews poll would be to ask how many people have had their phones cloned by the police, I didn't know it was uncommon. I guess they've stopped since phones are encrypted.
- qingcharles 1y ago
  Don't secure your phone with face or fingerprint scan as it is lawful in the USA to force you to open it in those instances.
  - 542354234235 1y ago
    It is actually more complicated than that and being forced to provide a passcode is also legal precedent, but both biometrics and passcodes are still open legal questions. 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/2024/04/17/22-50262.pdf https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2024/04/17/2... [2] https://www.barclaydamon.com/webfiles/Publications/Unlock-Devices-Law-Chart-1.pdf https://www.barclaydamon.com/webfiles/Publications/Unlock-De...

claytongulick 1y ago

Sudden outbreak of common sense.

dekken_ 1y ago

Now do facial recognition surveillance cameras

ranger_danger 1y ago

FYI The entire state of Michigan falls within the 100-mile border zone, where searches do not have as much protection: https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/border-zone https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/border-zone Also friendly reminder that "the Constitution does not grant aliens any protections when trying to enter the United States." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_ex_rel._Knauff_v._Shaughnessy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_ex_rel._Knauff_v...

tptacek 1y ago
The 100-mile border zone thing is a myth ACLU uses to fundraise. There have been SCOTUS cases knocking the idea down. There has to be some nexus to an actual border crossing for "border zone" rules to apply. About the most it seems the government can sustainably do is set up fixed checkpoints, and even those are legally problematic. This comes up on HN several times a year; there are longer discussions about it available in the search bar.
- ranger_danger 1y ago
  How is it a myth? https://www.snopes.com/news/2022/06/13/what-is-usa-border-enforcement-zone/ https://www.snopes.com/news/2022/06/13/what-is-usa-border-en... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception https://www.pennstatelawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/3-Anthony-100-Mile-Zone.pdf https://www.pennstatelawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/0... https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1032&context=sjlcr https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?ar... https://www.truthorfiction.com/supreme-court-100-miles-border-ruling/ https://www.truthorfiction.com/supreme-court-100-miles-borde... https://brownpoliticalreview.org/constitution-100-miles-questionable-nature-u-s-interior-checkpoints/ https://brownpoliticalreview.org/constitution-100-miles-ques... https://ballsandstrikes.org/legal-culture/border-patrol-100-mile-zone-explainer/ https://ballsandstrikes.org/legal-culture/border-patrol-100-...
  - tptacek 1y ago
    Read the Penn State Law Review article you just pasted. Nobody's questioning whether CBP itself acts abusively within the US. As the law review article observes, CBP's abuses have little to do with the "100 mile" thing; they detained Sen. Patrick Leahy by the side of the road more than 100 miles way from any nominal border. The article goes into great detail about what the courts have authorized; it's nothing like ACLU's claim. This is one area in which I think ACLU's advocacy is actively harmful: they're convincing people that the USG has statutory authorization to do things, things they actually do, for which they in fact have no authorization.

pcaharrier 1y ago

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.

righthand 1y ago
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.
- pcaharrier 1y ago
  > 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. Well, that gets into the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine, but we're not doing a full criminal procedure law school course today . . . Ironically, I heard more than one detective say that when they "dumped" a phone like that, they rarely found much useful evidence. There's just too much information on any given cell phone to be able to go through it all. So, in the end, their fishing expeditions end up being a waste of time and resources.
  - 0cf8612b2e1e 1y ago
    If they have a warrant to the phone, what is poisoned fruit? It only becomes tainted evidence if they eg) stole the phone and rifled through it.

daft_pink 1y ago

It’s sad that it’s the Michigan Supreme Court and not a federal court :(

mikece 1y ago
Oh there's still a chance this is appealed to and overturned by SCOTUS....

Johnny555 1y ago

>A four-justice majority agreed. They emphasized that digital search warrants must be precise, listing exactly what investigators are seeking and explaining why those specific data types or timeframes are relevant How do they limit the police to what was in the warrant? How do they prevent them police from searching the entire phone, and if they find something else incriminating, use parallel construction to find other evidence that justifies a warrant for a broader phone search? "We didn't find anything in our initial phone search, but now we have an informant that told us to look at his email in November last year"

WhyNotHugo 1y ago

Note that the Fourth Amendment applies only to residents of the US [1], but not to the other 99.5% of the human population. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Verdugo-Urquidez https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Verdugo-Urqui...

myroon5 1y ago
nitpick tangent: 95.X%, not 99.5%
theandrewbailey 1y ago
Unfortunately, this ruling only applies to Michigan, not the federal level.