Digital Evidence and Fourth Amendment

Can Police Search Your Phone Without a Warrant? Michigan Courts Are Drawing the Line on Digital Privacy
By Luke

In 2025, the device in your pocket may hold more personal data than your house — yet many criminal defendants still face charges based on warrantless searches of their phones. The Michigan Court of Appeals is starting to push back, signaling that law enforcement can’t treat your phone like a searchable backpack just because you’re under arrest.

Here’s how recent decisions are shaping digital privacy rights for Michiganders — and what it could mean for your case.

1. People v Dalcour: Consent to Search a Home ≠ Consent to Search a Phone

In People v Dalcour, Mich App ; 2024 WL 8763543 (Nov 16, 2024) (unpublished), police obtained consent to search the defendant’s apartment. While inside, they saw a phone on a nightstand, picked it up, and searched its contents — without a warrant.

The Court suppressed the evidence, ruling that the consent to search the premises didn’t extend to the personal contents of the phone:

“A cell phone is not analogous to a container found in a residence; it contains vast amounts of personal data... and a separate warrant is generally required.” – Dalcour, at 4, citing Riley v California, 573 US 373 (2014).

This reinforces the idea that even if police are lawfully in your home, your phone remains protected by the Fourth Amendment.

2. People v Baughn: Exigent Circumstances Can’t Be Hypothetical

In People v Baughn, Mich App ; 2025 WL 1921889 (Mar 1, 2025) (unpublished), the defendant was arrested during a traffic stop. Police seized his phone and immediately searched it, citing “exigent circumstances” — they claimed potential data deletion justified skipping a warrant.

But the Court disagreed, finding that the prosecution offered no concrete evidence of an imminent risk to data:

“Speculative fears about remote wiping are insufficient to justify bypassing the warrant requirement.” – Baughn, at *3.

The case confirms what the U.S. Supreme Court said in Riley: the police can seize a phone during arrest, but searching it without a warrant remains unconstitutional, unless there’s real and immediate danger.

3. People v Yeoman: Forensic Cell Phone Analysis Needs a Specific Warrant

In People v Yeoman, Mich App ; 2024 WL 9982272 (Dec 19, 2024) (unpublished), the defendant’s phone was obtained under a warrant authorizing a search for “communications with known associates.” Instead, police extracted the entire phone, including unrelated videos, bank info, and health data.

The Court suppressed the evidence, ruling the search exceeded the warrant’s scope:

“A search warrant for a cell phone must describe with particularity the areas to be examined; fishing expeditions into all data types are impermissible.” – Yeoman, at *4.

This decision underscores the growing recognition that digital searches need to be narrowly tailored, not open-ended.

Final Thoughts: Your Digital Life Is Protected — If You Know Your Rights

Michigan courts are increasingly aligning with Supreme Court precedent to protect the privacy of personal data. If police searched your phone without a warrant, or exceeded the scope of a warrant, the evidence may be thrown out.

At [Your Law Firm Name], we challenge illegal searches aggressively. Whether it’s a text message, social media post, or GPS ping, we understand how to use Fourth Amendment protections to your advantage.

Charged after a phone search? Let us help.
Call me for a free consultation. I'll evaluate the legality of the search and fight to keep unlawfully obtained evidence out of court.