3 ms·
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
by 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 agoThey 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 agoThey were probably hoping to build towards a nationwide rule