Neighbor News
Electronic searches without a warrant? Proposal 2 would outlaw it
Some Michigan lawmakers contend that state law does not explicitly protect against searches of electronic devices in Michigan.
LANSING, Mich. - Some Michigan lawmakers contend that state law does not explicitly protect against searches of electronic devices in Michigan.
A possible solution to that problem is on the ballot. Proposal 2 would clarify and amend section 11 of article I of the Constitution of Michigan “to require the government to obtain a search warrant in order to access a person’s electronic data or electronic communication, according to Senate Joint Resolution G.
The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Michigan Constitution mirrors similar language, but the proposed amendment would help keep up with changing technology, said state Sen. Jim Runestad, R-White Lake.
“But while our standard of living and communication ability continue to progress, one often overlooked side effect is our right to privacy,” he said on the Senate floor before a vote on June 11.
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that a warrant is necessary to search cell phones, “but a warrant is not required to read a person’s electronic mail,” according to a legislative analysis by the House Fiscal Agency.
Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have supported a change to offer Michiganders additional protections. Several groups endorse the measure, including Black Lives Matter (BLM) Flint.
“The American people need to have privacy in some sense, and it seems like we’ve lost that over the years,” said DeWaun Robinson, president of BLM Flint.
He said there was too much overreach under current law.
“You can kind of keep track and just check out people’s information without obtaining any warrant or justification for it.”
What are possible downsides to this proposed amendment?
Opponents fear unintended consequences like making it more difficult to investigate cybercrimes, such as human trafficking, according to the House Fiscal Agency. Critics also say that the law would have no impact on federal authorities.
Runestad told colleagues that action must be taken to preserve rights.
“The failure of our laws to address this new reality is not only a threat to our liberties today, it is a threat to the liberty of future generations to come,” he said.
Proposal 2 appears on Michigan’s General Election ballot for voters to decide. Election Day is Nov. 3.