Michigan Supreme Court: Unrestricted phone searches violate Fourth Amendment

Consequences of Overbroad Phone Warrants

• Core effect is evidentiary: illegally obtained data can be suppressed, jeopardizing prosecutions that rely on it.
• Commenters note that police, prosecutors, and judges are rarely personally punished; the “penalty” is usually losing the case, not facing sanctions.
• Some argue the exclusionary rule exists precisely because officials almost never face real consequences for rights violations.

Particularity & “General Warrants” in the Digital Era

• Many see unrestricted phone dumps (all messages, photos, etc.) as modern “general warrants” the Fourth Amendment was meant to prevent.
• Others debate how specific warrants can realistically be on phones: by date ranges, data types (e.g., call logs, SMS), or articulated links to the alleged crime.
• Analogy used: you can only search places where evidence is likely to be (no refrigerator in the sugar bowl → no full-phone trawl for a narrow offense).
• Counterpoint: digital devices are dense and ambiguous; defining “texts” or app boundaries is fuzzy but judges routinely draw such lines.

Michigan’s Ruling, State Law, and Federal Limits

• Some misunderstand the court’s power; others clarify it can bind Michigan judges and state/local police but not federal agents.
• Discussion notes Michigan’s constitution explicitly requires warrants to describe electronic data, but that issue was not raised by defense, so ruling rests on the U.S. Constitution and is more vulnerable to later federal reversal.

Border Zone & Federal Search Powers

• Debate over the “100‑mile border zone”:
  • One side cites statutes/regulations defining a 100‑mile “reasonable distance” where CBP can operate and notes reduced protections at actual border crossings.
  • The other calls the “100‑mile zone with fewer rights” framing a myth/mischaracterization; courts, they argue, do not grant blanket search powers merely for being within that radius.

Unlocking Phones & Compelled Decryption

• Advice appears: avoid biometrics; they can often be compelled like fingerprints or blood samples.
• Others note passcodes are also not clearly protected; courts are split, often hinging on “foregone conclusion” doctrine and whether unlocking is testimonial.
• Consensus: neither method is a guaranteed shield; doctrine is unsettled and evolving.

Police Incentives, Fishing Expeditions, and Plea System

• Multiple anecdotes describe detectives seeking full-phone dumps with weak or generic justifications (“everyone has a phone”), sometimes denied by conscientious magistrates.
• Several commenters argue police use narrow crimes (e.g., domestic violence, traffic stops) as pretexts to search for more serious offenses.
• Broader criticism of the U.S. criminal system: heavy use of plea deals, overworked public defenders, and vast prosecutorial leverage make rights violations and overbroad searches especially dangerous.

Enforcement and Workarounds

• Concern that even with narrow warrants, police could still search everything, then use “parallel construction” (inventing new sources) to launder tainted leads.
• Others respond that “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine can, in theory, exclude both the initial illegal evidence and anything derived from it—but note it only bites if a case goes far enough and defense has resources to challenge it.

Scope of Constitutional Protection

• One commenter notes Fourth Amendment protections, per cited precedent, apply to “the people” of the United States (residents), not foreigners abroad; others emphasize this ruling is limited to Michigan and does not bind federal practice.