Phone and Computer Searches in Michigan Sex-Crime Cases

Police in Michigan generally need a warrant to search the contents of a phone. The U.S. Supreme Court held in Riley v California that "a warrant is generally required before such a search, even when a cell phone is seized incident to arrest."^[1] The Michigan Constitution separately protects "electronic data" and "electronic communications" from unreasonable searches and seizures.^[2]

This page explains the warrant rules, the limits on what a warrant allows, the role of consent, and who can see the complainant's phone. It covers the legal rules only. It does not describe forensic examination methods or how evidence is located on a device; those subjects are outside the sources this guide relies on.

The warrant requirement

Riley v California

Riley was decided June 25, 2014.^[1] The question was what police must do before searching a cell phone seized incident to an arrest, and the Court's answer was "accordingly simple—get a warrant."^[1] The Court was careful about the limits of its ruling: the holding "is not that the information on a cell phone is immune from search."^[1]

The decision also left room for emergencies. Although the search-incident-to-arrest exception does not apply to cell phones, the exigent circumstances exception may still justify a warrantless search in particular cases.^[6]

The Michigan Constitution

Article 1, section 11 of the Michigan Constitution, as amended effective December 19, 2020, reads: "The person, houses, papers, possessions, electronic data, and electronic communications of every person shall be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures."^[2] It goes on to say that no warrant to access electronic data or electronic communications shall issue without describing them, nor without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation.^[2]

Records held by a phone company

In Carpenter v United States, decided June 22, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the government's acquisition of a person's historical cell-site location information was a search, and that the government must generally obtain a warrant supported by probable cause before acquiring such records.^[7]

How a Michigan search warrant is issued

1. An affidavit under oath. A warrant is issued when an affidavit is made on oath to a judge or district court magistrate and establishes grounds for a warrant.^[8]
2. A finding of probable cause. The judge or magistrate issues the warrant if satisfied that there is probable cause for the search.^[8]
3. A proper object. A warrant may be issued to search for and seize property or other things in listed categories, which include evidence of crime or criminal conduct and things used as the means of committing a crime.^[9]
4. A description. Each warrant must designate and describe the place to be searched and the property or thing to be seized.^[10]
5. Stated grounds. The warrant must either state the grounds or the probable or reasonable cause for its issuance or have a copy of the affidavit attached.^[10]

What a warrant does and does not allow

A warrant for a phone is not permission to look for anything. In People v Hughes (2020), the Michigan Supreme Court said: "[A] warrant to search a suspect's digital cell-phone data for evidence of one crime does not enable a search of that same data for evidence of another crime without obtaining a second warrant."^[3]

The statutory description requirement points the same way: the warrant identifies the thing to be seized, and the constitution requires that electronic data or communications to be accessed be described.^[10][2]

Common belief	What the sources say
"Once police have a warrant, everything on the phone is fair game."	A warrant to search phone data for evidence of one crime does not enable a search of that data for evidence of another crime without a second warrant.[3]
"If they arrest you, they can go through your phone."	A warrant is generally required before searching the information on a cell phone, even when it is seized incident to arrest.[1]
"A phone can never be searched without a warrant."	Consent is an established exception, and exigent circumstances may justify a warrantless search in particular cases.[4][6]

When police carry out the warrant

An officer who seizes property under a search warrant must make a complete and accurate tabulation of what was seized, in the presence of the person from whose possession or premises it was taken, if present, or of at least one other person.^[11] The officer must give that person a copy of the warrant and of the tabulation, or leave copies at the place from which the property was taken.^[11]

The affidavit is treated differently. The officer is not required to give the person a copy of the affidavit.^[11] On a showing that it is necessary to protect an ongoing investigation or the privacy or safety of a victim or witness, the magistrate may order the affidavit suppressed and not given to the person whose property was seized until that person is charged with a crime or named as a claimant in a civil forfeiture proceeding.^[10]

After a charge, any affidavit, warrant and return pertaining to a search or seizure in connection with the case are among the items the prosecuting attorney must provide to the defendant on request under the felony discovery rule.^[12] General discovery practice is covered in the sister guide's page on discovery.

Consent searches

Police may also ask a person to hand over a phone or agree to a search. In Schneckloth v Bustamonte the U.S. Supreme Court described a search conducted pursuant to consent as one of the specifically established exceptions to the requirements of both a warrant and probable cause.^[4]

The Court's holding sets the test. When the subject of a search is not in custody and the state relies on consent, the state must demonstrate that the consent was in fact voluntarily given, and not the result of duress or coercion, express or implied.^[4] Voluntariness is a question of fact determined from all the circumstances. The person's knowledge of a right to refuse is a factor to be taken into account, but the prosecution is not required to prove that knowledge.^[4]

That is a description of how courts evaluate consent after the fact. This guide does not suggest how anyone should answer a request; the rights that apply when police ask to talk are set out in When a detective calls.

Challenging a search

Whether a particular search complied with these rules is a question for the trial court. The issues the rules above present are whether there was a warrant, whether it was supported by an affidavit establishing probable cause, whether the search stayed within it, and whether an exception applied.^[8][3][4] The sister guide explains the procedure in Motions to suppress evidence.

The complainant's phone

Phones belonging to the person who reported raise a different question, because a criminal defendant's discovery rights are not a search warrant. In People v Leonard (2026), as described in the state's Sexual Assault Benchbook, the Court of Appeals said the prosecution is not required "to surrender the entirety of a complainant's cellular phone data to a defendant."^[5]

The procedure the court described is an in camera review, meaning review by the judge in private: the records are examined "to ascertain whether they contain evidence that is reasonably necessary, and therefore essential, to the defense," and only when the trial court finds such evidence should it be provided to the defendant.^[5] The opinion itself was read for this guide only as the benchbook quotes it.

Related rules protect counseling and other privileged records, which a court inspects in camera only if the defendant demonstrates a good-faith belief, grounded in articulable fact, that there is a reasonable probability the records contain material information necessary to the defense.^[13] See Access to counseling and medical records and Privacy and rights of victims in sex-crime cases.

Image evidence in cases involving minors

Where a case involves child sexually abusive material, the evidence itself stays under the prosecution's control. A court must deny a defendant's request to reproduce photographic or other pictorial evidence of a child engaging in a listed sexual act if the prosecuting attorney makes that evidence reasonably available to the defendant.^[14] The offenses are described in Child sexually abusive material and Using the internet or a computer to commit a sex offense.

From the search to the courtroom

Getting data lawfully is the first step; using it as evidence is the second. The side offering a message, photo or record must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what that side claims it is.^[15] A party's own statement, offered against that party, is not hearsay.^[16] Those rules, and how they apply to texts and social media, are covered in Texts, apps and digital evidence. Recorded conversations are covered in Recorded "pretext" calls and messages.

What this page does not cover

The sources reviewed for this guide do not address, and this page states no rule about: how forensic tools extract or recover data; how files are identified or attributed to a user; searches at the border or by federal agencies; requests to online providers under federal statutes; or compelled unlocking of a device. The Fourth Amendment decisions described above are stated only as far as the opinions' own words go.^[1][7]