Michigan Supreme Court Rules Unrestricted Phone Searches Violate Fourth Amendment (reclaimthenet.org)
- Reference: 0178884192
- News link: https://yro.slashdot.org/story/25/08/26/1828256/michigan-supreme-court-rules-unrestricted-phone-searches-violate-fourth-amendment
- Source link: https://reclaimthenet.org/michigan-supreme-court-rules-phone-search-warrants-must-be-specific
> In People v. Carson, the court [2]found [PDF] that warrants for digital devices must include specific limitations, allowing access only to information directly tied to the suspected crime. 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. The court ruled that this kind of expansive warrant violates the Fourth Amendment, which requires particularity in describing what police may search and seize.
[1] https://reclaimthenet.org/michigan-supreme-court-rules-phone-search-warrants-must-be-specific
[2] https://docs.reclaimthenet.org/people-v-carson-michigan-supreme-court-166923-202.pdf
Any Unrestricted Searches Violate 4th Amendment (Score:4, Informative)
Any sort of unrestricted search violates the fourth amendment, it doesn't matter what is being searched.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Does it matter anymore? (Score:1, Interesting)
The president has successfully reduced the courts to a purely ceremonial role now. They can rule how they want, only to be overruled by an executive order that nobody will dare challenge. We are in a dictatorship right now, and unfortunately the rest of the world is unable and unwilling to contain it inside the border
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Or the case goes up the chain to the supreme court where it gets rubber stamped with a 6/3 ruling.
aclu is not what it was (Score:2, Informative)
Not remotely what it was. Institute for Justice is doing the work the ACLU once did.
What's to stop them? (Score:4, Interesting)
Once they have access to a device or an account, they have access to all of it. A court can always rule it inadmissible as evidence, but parallel construction is always a possibility. The technology does not exist to support what access a judge may limit law enforcement to and there are not always neutral third parties to carry out data extraction to ensure that it is limited to what is legally ordered.
Re:What's to stop them? (Score:5, Insightful)
This isn't a technology problem, it's a law problem. The law is supposed to stop authorities from searching things outside of the scope of a warrant. The law is also supposed to impose penalties when authorities fail to operate within their legal bounds.
In short, "stopping them" is the entire point of the 4th Amendment.
Re: (Score:3)
I studied this and even wrote a paper on it... There are severe issues with the way searches of digital devices are carried out. Granted, on a phone they're probably less, but because it's so easy to rename "IncriminatingDocument.txt" to "MyVacation.mp4", they have to search every file.
The issue is that any digital device these days has SO MUCH non-responsive information that it's essentially a general warrant. And as GP noted, it would be easy to do parallel construction. Maybe the answer is to have
Re: (Score:3)
Once they have access to a device or an account, they have access to all of it.
That is true, but the same is true when they have access to search a home for X, for example a search for a certain gun. In theory nothing physically stops them searching through everything and looking at items that aren't on the warrant - they got physical access to the whole building.
I'd say it is still a good finding that warrants need to be more specific than to say seize and search all the potential data on a phone,
Re: (Score:2)
Mod parent up. (because I mis clicked and modded down. =( )
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, there is jurisprudence on this. In a physical warrant, you cannot search for material that is non-responsive.
An example I used in a term paper in law school* is two accountants, one who is old fashioned and only uses paper, the other is fully digital. Accountant 1 has kiddie porn on a videotape labeled "Vacation 2014". Accountant 2 has kiddie porn in a file called "My Vacation 2014.mp4".
Both are served with warrants for tax fraud. The search of Accountant 1's premises cannot examine the video