The Michigan Supreme Court has drawn a firm line around digital privacy, ruling that police cannot use overly broad warrants to comb through every corner of a person’s phone.
In People v. Carson, the court found that warrants for digital devices must include specific limitations, allowing access only to information directly tied to the suspected crime.
We obtained a copy of the opinion for you here (the opinion starts on page 5).
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.
The justices said allowing law enforcement to browse through an entire phone without justification amounts to an unconstitutional exploratory search.
Smartphones now serve as central hubs for people’s lives, containing everything from health records and banking details to travel histories and intimate conversations.
Searching a device without limits can expose a volume and variety of personal information that far exceeds what a physical search could reveal.
Groups including the Electronic Frontier Foundation, ACLU National, and the ACLU of Michigan intervened in the case, filing a brief that called on the court to adopt strict rules for digital searches.
They argued that phones hold what the US Supreme Court has described as “the sum of an individual’s private life,” and that unrestricted warrants effectively strip away meaningful privacy protections.
MORE: Your Phone Isn’t Safe at the Border. Warrantless Phone Searches Hit Record High.
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. Magistrates authorizing such searches must confirm that police have a factual basis for requesting that access.
