Michigan Supreme Court Grants Review in People v. Carson

An important case on the particularity of digital-evidence warrants.

Back in March, I had a long post here, Yes, Warrants Allow A Search Through the Whole Phone, criticizing a Michigan Court of Appeals ruling in People v. Carson.  My post began:

As regular readers know, one of the big issues in computer search and seizure law that I often write about is how to limit computer warrant searches.  If everything needs to be searched to find the evidence, and information outside the scope of the evidence sought can be used in plain view, doesn't a search of a computer with a warrant result in a general search — the kind that the Fourth Amendment was enacted to prevent.  My own answer to this puzzle is that the Fourth Amendment requires use restrictions for digital searches.  The whole computer can be searched, but evidence outside the scope of the warrant cannot be used.

In the last year or two, however, a few state courts have tried to limit computer searches through novel interpretations of the particularity requirement. I think this is wrong, and I thought I would explain why.

I'm pleased to report that the state sought review of the ruling from the Michigan Supreme Court, and that today the Michigan Supreme Court agreed to hear the case:

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 15, 2024 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is GRANTED. The parties shall address whether the Court of Appeals erred by: (1) holding that the warrant to search the defendant's cell phone violated the Fourth Amendment's particularity requirement, see People v Hughes, 506 Mich 512, 538 (2020); (2) failing to sever any valid portions of the search warrant from any invalid portions, see People v Keller, 479 Mich 467, 479 (2007); (3) holding that the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule did not apply, see People v Goldston, 470 Mich 523, 531 (2004), discussing United States v Leon, 468 US 897, 923 (1984); and (4) finding that trial counsel deprived the defendant of his right to the effective assistance of counsel by failing to move to suppress the evidence obtained from his cell phone on these grounds, see Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668, 687-688 (1984).

As always, stay tuned.