Michigan’s Phone Fiasco: When Warrants Go Wild!
The search warrant in People v. Carson was as vague as a fortune cookie. EFF argues it lacked particularity, violating the Fourth Amendment. Just because phones are used for everything from banking to ordering pizza doesn’t mean they hold evidence of every crime. The warrant needed a serious reality check—and perhaps a calendar.
Hot Take:
In the age of smartphones that can practically make your breakfast and tuck you in at night, it’s no surprise that law enforcement wants to play tech detective with our devices. But when the warrant to search a phone is as vague as a Tinder bio, it’s time to swipe left on unconstitutional searches. Mr. Carson’s case is a glaring reminder that just because your phone has more data than a NASA server doesn’t mean cops should have a free pass to explore your Candy Crush scores, therapy apps, and your mom’s texts asking if you’ve eaten. After all, if the government keeps poking their noses into our digital lives, we might as well hand them our phones with a sticky note that says, “Good luck finding anything useful!”
Key Points:
- Mr. Carson’s smartphone was searched based on a vague warrant lacking specific probable cause.
- The search warrant allowed for unrestricted access to all data on Carson’s phone.
- EFF, ACLU, and others filed a brief arguing the warrant was unconstitutional.
- The warrant lacked particularity and failed to establish a nexus between the crime and the phone.
- Smartphones require heightened scrutiny in search warrants due to their sensitive data.