Last week, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), along with the Criminal Defense Attorneys of Michigan and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), filed an amicus curiae brief before the Michigan Supreme Court. This document focuses on the case of “People v. Carson” and questions the constitutionality of a search warrant for the defendant’s mobile phone.
The case involves an individual, Mr. Carson, who was arrested for allegedly stealing money from a neighbor’s safe. Subsequently, authorities obtained a warrant to search his phone, although the justification for such search was vague, based solely on a general statement by an officer about the device being used in the commission of crimes. The warrant was executed without any limitations on the time or type of data that could be examined, leading to the evidence obtained being used in his conviction.
In the appeal, the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Carson, stating that the evidence collected from the phone should not be admitted in the trial, due to the lack of specificity in the search warrant. The government challenged this decision before the Supreme Court, which accepted the appeal and received the amicus brief.
In this brief, the EFF argues that the search warrant was inadequate and overly broad, as it did not demonstrate probable cause for the search and lacked the necessary specifications to limit the search to a period or specific types of information. The EFF invokes the precedent established in the case of “Riley v. California,” where it is recognized that smartphones are different from other objects in their storage capacity and the sensitive information they contain.
The submission highlights that courts must be extremely cautious in reviewing search warrants related to electronic devices, adhering to the standards of probable cause and specificity set forth by the Fourth Amendment. In Carson’s case, the warrant application did not establish a direct link between the theft investigation and the defendant’s phone, merely citing the allegations that justified his arrest.
Furthermore, it is noted that the warrant allowed access to “all data” on the phone without restrictions, which is incompatible with the protection that the Fourth Amendment provides against general searches. Traditionally, requests for mobile device searches have included temporal and data category limits, something that the warrant in question did not consider.
Given the increasing use of smartphones and their ability to store private data, it is vital that courts maintain a rigorous approach to search warrants, thereby reinforcing the essential aim of the Fourth Amendment: to protect the privacy and security of individuals against arbitrary state invasions.
Referrer: MiMub in Spanish
