Inside This Article
- What are your Fourth Amendment rights regarding digital data and communications?
- When can police conduct a vehicle stop without violating Fourth Amendment protections?
- How can an attorney challenge an overbroad search or warrant under the Fourth Amendment?
Your privacy has limits, but so does the government.
What the Fourth Amendment Protects
The Fourth Amendment protects you from unreasonable searches and seizures. Police must have a lawful reason to stop you, detain you, enter your home, or search your property. In most situations, a “lawful reason” means they’ve obtained a warrant supported by probable cause and specific limits on what officers can search and seize. Michigan law tracks the core principles of your Fourth Amendment rights and, in some areas, gives you stronger protection than federal law.
Michigan’s Constitution Adds Power
Michigan’s Constitution contains its own privacy guarantee, similar to the Fourth Amendment rights protected in the federal Constitution. It protects your person, home, papers, possessions, electronic data, and electronic communications from unreasonable searches and seizures. It also demands probable cause and a warrant that describes the place to be searched and the items to be seized. Michigan voters strengthened this language to expressly cover electronic data and communications.
Michigan courts decide for themselves how far these protections go. They often follow federal precedent, but they do not have to if Michigan’s text, history, or structure supports a broader reading. Courts have identified factors for when to depart from federal law and have used those factors to strike down practices such as suspicionless DUI checkpoints under Article 1, Section 11.
When Police Need a Warrant
A valid warrant requires probable cause and particularity under federal Fourth Amendment rights and Michigan’s Constitution. Particularity means the warrant must clearly describe what officers can look for and where. Michigan’s Supreme Court stressed this point in a case involving a cell phone warrant that authorized a sweep for “any and all data.” The Court held that language like that provides no meaningful constraint and risks rummaging through every corner of a person’s digital life. It found that practical guardrails, such as time limits, data-type limits, and targeted keyword searches, that fit the alleged crime are required.
Common Exceptions to the Warrant Rule Under the Fourth Amendment
Courts recognize limited, well-defined exceptions. Two arise often.
Consent. If you voluntarily consent, officers may search within the scope of that consent. Disputes often focus on what the person actually allowed. Michigan’s courts have emphasized that officers must stay within the reasonable understanding of the permission given and that any further search requires a new lawful basis.
Exigent circumstances. Officers may act without a warrant to prevent the imminent destruction of evidence. For example, the Court of Appeals upheld the temporary seizure of a suspect’s phone where officers had probable cause to believe the phone contained evidence and a legitimate concern that digital data could be deleted quickly. The court approved a short delay to obtain the warrant, given the risk and the officer’s diligence. Searches properly conducted pursuant to legitimate exigent circumstances do not violate a person’s Fourth Amendment rights.
Are Vehicle and Traffic Stops a violation of your Fourth Amendment Rights in Michigan?
Police need a lawful reason to stop a car. During a valid stop, they may order the driver and passengers to remain while they complete their investigation. Michigan courts have allowed officers to direct a passenger who tries to walk away before the car fully stops to return to the vehicle. If the passenger refuses a lawful order and gets arrested, officers may search the passenger incident to that arrest.
Marijuana changed the rules. The smell of marijuana used to give officers probable cause to search a vehicle. After legalization for adults, the smell alone no longer establishes probable cause. It can still matter, but only when combined with other incriminating facts, such as signs of impairment or evidence of illegal public consumption. Michigan’s high court has recognized this shift and left open questions about whether the smell alone can justify a brief investigative stop.
Young drivers face different rules. If an officer has probable cause that someone under 21 possesses marijuana, that civil infraction may intersect with the automobile exception. Michigan’s Supreme Court has flagged active questions about the limits of searches that follow. These details can determine whether the court suppresses evidence or allows it.
Digital Privacy: Phones, Data, and AI and your Fourth Amendment Rights
Your phone holds your photos, messages, location history, and more. Courts treat a cell phone like a container of private life, not a simple object. Michigan case law stresses that warrants for phone searches need clear limits tailored to the investigation. Vague commands to grab “any and all data” risk suppression. Courts have suggested time windows, file-type boundaries, and keyword filters as reasonable ways to narrow a search.
Even without a warrant, police may sometimes secure a phone first to preserve evidence and then seek judicial approval. Courts have upheld a brief delay when officers had probable cause, faced a real risk that data could be wiped, and acted diligently to obtain the warrant.
Michigan’s Constitution also expressly protects electronic data and communications, requiring warrants to describe the digital information sought. This state-level protection makes a difference in modern cases involving cloud backups, app content, and synced services. When police draft overbroad requests, courts may limit or exclude the results.
Technology extends beyond phones. Courts and advocates in Michigan have raised concerns about surveillance platforms like gunshot detection systems and facial recognition. A Michigan appellate opinion described ShotSpotter as constant surveillance over a defined area. Civil rights litigation has documented wrongful arrests linked to facial recognition misidentifications. These tools can affect probable cause and reliability, issues your lawyer can challenge through discovery and expert testimony.
Probation, Parole, and Special Rules
People on probation or parole live with narrower privacy rights, but not none. Michigan courts have allowed warrantless searches tied to supervision when facts connect the search to legitimate supervision goals. The details matter, including the conditions of supervision and any independent evidence of ongoing criminal activity. Generally, a warrantless search of someone on probation or parole is lawful if the search is supported by “reasonable suspicion” that it will result in evidence of a crime.
What To Do If Police Ask To Search
Stay calm. Ask if you are free to leave. If the officer says yes, leave. If the officer says no, remain polite and still. You can say, “I do not consent to any searches.” Do not interfere with the officer. Do not resist. Ask for a lawyer and stop talking. If asked any questions, state clearly, “I invoke my rights to a lawyer and to remain silent.”
You can also ask, “Do you have a warrant?” If officers show a warrant, read what it allows. Officers can only search places and items the warrant describes, and only for the listed evidence. If they go beyond those limits, your lawyer may be able to suppress what they find. Verbal or physical resistance can result in additional charges, such as Resisting and Obstructing. If the search was unlawful, a skilled criminal defense lawyer can move for suppression of any evidence obtained.
How Courts Evaluate Suppression Motions Under State Law and Fourth Amendment Rights in the U.S. Constitution
Courts look at the totality of the circumstances. They ask whether police had probable cause or reasonable suspicion, whether a valid exception applied, and whether officers stayed within the law’s limits. In Michigan, courts also examine whether a warrant was sufficiently specific, especially for digital searches, and whether officers honored the scope of consent.
If you find yourself in this situation, it is important that you choose an experienced defense attorney who is familiar with the way Michigan courts have ruled in prior cases. Michigan courts:
- Struck down overbroad phone warrants and advised practical limits such as time frames, data categories, and keyword filters.
- Upheld temporary seizure of a phone to prevent data deletion while officers pursued a warrant, so long as probable cause and real risk existed and the delay was reasonable.
- Rejected the idea that the smell of marijuana alone gives probable cause after legalization, while noting that additional signs of illegality may revive probable cause.
- Confirmed that officers can require passengers to remain during a lawful traffic stop and may search incident to arrest if a passenger refuses a lawful command.
Federal Charges and Michigan Practice Analyzing Fourth Amendment Rights
Many Michigan cases proceed in state court, but federal prosecutions follow parallel rules. Some federal courts, such as the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, accept inferences that link drug activity to a home even without direct sales at the residence, especially when evidence shows ongoing operations and travel between locations. Michigan’s state courts continue to examine how much connection is enough when officers seek to search a home or phone. These issues often decide whether someone’s Fourth Amendment rights were violated, and whether evidence stays in or gets suppressed.
Your Fourth Amendment Rights, Your Choices
Knowing your Fourth Amendment rights changes outcomes. You have the right to refuse consent to a search. You have the right to remain silent. You have the right to a lawyer. Use those rights. The sooner a skilled defense lawyer gets involved, the better the chances to preserve evidence, demand the warrant and affidavit, challenge the stop or seizure, and file a tailored motion to suppress.
Why LEWIS & DICKSTEIN, P.L.L.C. is the right partner
We defend people in state and federal courts across Michigan when the government crosses the line. Our team understands how to dismantle an overbroad phone warrant, counter claims of probable cause, challenge a consent search that went too far, and expose weaknesses in surveillance-driven investigations, including AI-assisted reports and analytics. We move quickly. We file focused motions to suppress and dismiss. We bring the credibility and tenacity that complex Fourth Amendment litigation demands. When your liberty and reputation are on the line, you deserve a Michigan criminal defense lawyer who knows how to suppress illegally obtained evidence and negotiate from strength. Reach out to LEWIS & DICKSTEIN, P.L.L.C. for a confidential, free consultation today.
Call us today at (248) 263-6800 for a free consultation or complete an online Request for Assistance Form. We will contact you promptly and find a way to help you.
We will find a way to help you.
We Are Not Afraid to Win!
