Skip to content

Menu

ChannelsPublishersSubscribe
LexBlog, Inc. logo
LexBlog, Inc. logo
ProductsSub-MenuBlogsPortalsTwentySyndicationMicrositesResource Center
Join
Search
Close
Join the Movement. Blog 4 Good

No Unreasonable Searches or Seizures of Electronic Data in Michigan

By Lissette C. Payne & Courtney Achee on November 13, 2020
EmailTweetLikeLinkedIn

No Unreasonable Searches or Seizures of Electronic Data in MichiganThe most intimate information can be found in the data on our cellphones and laptops, from geo-location data to search history. The level of privacy protections afforded to electronic data and communications have been unclear and ambiguous for years, but after this election, Michigan now has some clarity.

On November 03, 2020, Proposal 2 was passed by an overwhelming majority, amending Article 1, Section 11 of Michigan’s Constitution. Proposal 2 will provide personal protections by prohibiting unreasonable searches or seizures of electronic data and communications. It will do so through requiring law enforcement to obtain a search warrant to access an individual’s electronic data and communication under the same conditions needed to search through an individual’s home or seize an individual’s papers or physical items.

The amendment will fill a gap in the Michigan Constitution. Before the passing of Proposal 2, the Michigan Constitution provided protections against unreasonable searches and seizures for physical items but did not explicitly mention electronic data or communications. With the amendment to the Michigan Constitution, there will be no more ambiguity over whether data — such as cell phone data, communications with Alexa and Google Home, or Apple Watch health metrics — is private and requires a warrant to be searched or seized by law enforcement in Michigan.

Michigan is not the first state (and likely won’t be the last) to provide some level of protection for electronic data and communications. Utah has enacted a law banning warrantless searches and seizures of electronic data and communications. Moreover, the Florida Constitution mentions “the right of the people to be secure … against the unreasonable interception of private communications.” However, both Utah and Florida’s protections are not as strong as Michigan’s explicit protections in a constitutional amendment. Going forward, it is likely that more states will follow Michigan’s lead in protecting electronic data and communications through constitutional amendments.

Continue to look for further updates and alerts from Bradley on state privacy rights and obligations.

Photo of Lissette C. Payne Lissette C. Payne

Lissette Payne is an attorney in Bradley’s Banking and Financial Services Practice Group. She is designated as a Certified Information Privacy Professional by the International Association of Privacy Professionals, with U.S. Private Sector (CIPP/US) and European (CIPP/E) concentrations.

Lissette received a J.D. from…

Lissette Payne is an attorney in Bradley’s Banking and Financial Services Practice Group. She is designated as a Certified Information Privacy Professional by the International Association of Privacy Professionals, with U.S. Private Sector (CIPP/US) and European (CIPP/E) concentrations.

Lissette received a J.D. from the University of North Carolina School of Law, where she was president of the Hispanic/Latino Law Student Association, co-chair of the Student Bar Association’s Multicultural and Diversity Committee and a member of the Hispanic/Latino Law Student Association Moot Court Team. She received her B.A. in Political Science from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Read more about Lissette C. PayneEmail Lissette's Linkedin Profile
Show more Show less
Photo of Courtney Achee Courtney Achee

Courtney Achee assists clients across industries with litigation and compliance needs. Courtney advises clients on compliance obligations under federal statutes and regulations, state privacy and data security laws, global data protection laws, and industry standards including GLBA, FCRA, FACTA, TCPA, CAN-SPAM, UDAP/UDAAP, COPPA…

Courtney Achee assists clients across industries with litigation and compliance needs. Courtney advises clients on compliance obligations under federal statutes and regulations, state privacy and data security laws, global data protection laws, and industry standards including GLBA, FCRA, FACTA, TCPA, CAN-SPAM, UDAP/UDAAP, COPPA, CCPA, GDPR, Privacy Shield, PCR, PCI DSS, and other laws.

Courtney has also assisted financial institutions with regulatory examinations conducted by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), including examinations on regulations such as TILA RESPA Integrated Disclosures Act (TRID) and Know Before You Owe.

Read more about Courtney AcheeEmail Courtney's Linkedin Profile
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Privacy & Data Security
  • Blog:
    Online & On Point
  • Organization:
    Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP
  • Article: View Original Source

Stay Connected

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
Real Lawyers

Company

  • About LexBlog
  • Careers
  • Press
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Privacy Policy
  • Editorial Policy
  • Disclaimer
  • Terms of Service
  • RSS Terms of Service

Products

  • Products
  • Blogs
  • Portals
  • Twenty
  • Syndication
  • Microsites

Support

  • 1-800-913-0988
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
  • Resource Center

New to the Network

  • Tax Controversy & Financial Crimes Report
  • Roberts Disability Law Blog
  • Animal Law Update
  • International Labor and Employment Law
  • Wills, Trusts & Estates Prof Blog
Copyright © 2021, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Powered By LexBlog