Department of Attorney General to Argue Critical Cell Phone Search Warrant Case Before Michigan Supreme Court

LANSING – Tomorrow, the Michigan Department of Attorney General will give oral arguments before the Michigan Supreme Court in the matter of People v. Carson, a case with significant implications for how courts across the State interpret the Fourth Amendment in the context of cell phone search warrants. The Michigan Supreme Court granted review in April 2024 to address key constitutional questions raised by the Michigan Court of Appeals’ decision overturning Michael Carson’s convictions on Fourth Amendment and double jeopardy grounds.

In October 2020, an Emmet County jury found Carson guilty of multiple felonies related to the theft of nearly $70,000 from his elderly neighbor’s safe. He was convicted of:

• Safe Breaking;
• Larceny of Property Valued at $20,000 or More;
• Receiving or Concealing Stolen Property Valued at $20,000 or More;
• Larceny from a Building; and
• Conspiracy to commit each of those offenses.

At trial, text messages retrieved from Carson’s phone via a search warrant were presented as circumstantial evidence of a conspiracy to commit the theft. The search warrant authorized a search of the phone for “records or documents pertaining to the investigation of Larceny in a Building and Safe Breaking.”

Carson appealed his convictions, claiming, among other things, ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to challenge the search warrant’s validity. In February 2024, the Court of Appeals, in a 2-to-1 decision, overturned Carson’s convictions, ruling that the search warrant violated the Fourth Amendment’s particularity requirement. The Court of Appeals majority asserted that the warrant permitted a search of the entire contents of Carson’s phone, thereby rendering the search improper. Additionally, the Court found that the good faith exception did not apply because the majority believed the warrant was so facially deficient that no reasonable officer could have believed it valid.

Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel petitioned the Michigan Supreme Court to review, arguing the Court of Appeals erred by:

• Holding that the search warrant lacked sufficient particularity under the Fourth Amendment;
• Failing to sever valid portions of the warrant from any potentially overbroad sections;
• Misapplying the good faith exception; and
• Concluding that Carson’s trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective for not challenging the search warrant.

The Attorney General contends that the Court of Appeals imposed a legally unsupported and unworkable standard for cell phone search warrants. The Attorney General argues that the ruling would unrealistically demand investigators identify specific subfolders or applications within a phone in advance, even when the warrant already clearly specifies the crimes under investigation and the digital evidence being sought.

“This erroneous decision has no foundation in law and ignores the reality that criminals do not neatly label their crimes for law enforcement to find,” Nessel said. “By imposing an unrealistic and unsupported standard of specificity on cell phone search warrants, the Court of Appeals has jeopardized countless past, pending, and future cases across our State and set a dangerous precedent that threatens to hinder the ability of law enforcement to effectively investigate crime. I hope that the Michigan Supreme Court reverses this ruling and restores a reasonable, constitutionally sound framework that allows law enforcement to protect our communities.”

Oral arguments will take place before the Michigan Supreme Court on April 10.

###