Readit NewsYou know, if you're a Homeland Security agent you have to tell us, right?
With how many laws we have on the books, everyone on the planet can be found guilty of some violation if their life is examined with a fine toothed comb
In my experience, yes, in many cases it was more laziness than something nefarious. Police often have a theory of the case in their head that just doesn't make it onto the affidavit. Things that seem obvious to them after investigating the case for some length of time are not as obvious to someone seeing it for the first time on a search warrant affidavit. Fishing expeditions happen, no doubt, but let's also remember Hubbard's corollary to Hanlon's razor: "Never attribute to malice or stupidity that which can be explained by moderately rational individuals following incentives in a complex system." They get in a hurry, don't read the affidavit with fresh eyes, and forge ahead anyway because they're under pressure to close cases quickly. Not that that's a good thing, but it's distinct from people who are intent on just breaking the law and violating people's rights.
Who me? I assure you I don't.
In the particular case I described above there were some factors about who the person was that make me pretty confident the police were wanting to sniff around for something juicier (though because of his situation, even the accusation of domestic violence was going to be enough to ruin certain things for him, even if nothing ever came of it). That's SOP for many things where, for example, certain departments train officers to use traffic stops as pretexts to "elevate" the encounter to a felony arrest. They don't care that the guy failed to come to a complete stop at that stop sign, but they like their chances of getting consent to search his vehicle and finding (or, in the egregious cases, planting) something else.
Edit: I see that you weren't replying directly to me. Sorry about that.
Now the downside is that since they rely on the Federal Constitution in the ruling rather than the Michigan one, if the Supreme Court ever rules differently, this precedent will be overturned, even in Michigan.
"Our state Constitution, Const 1963, art 1, § 11, also guards against unreasonable searches and seizures. In fact, as amended by voter initiative in the 2020 general election, Const 1963, art 1, § 11 specifically provides that “[n]o warrant to . . . access electronic data or electronic communications shall issue without describing them . . . .” However, defendant’s claims below rested solely on Fourth Amendment principles. Therefore, we have no occasion to consider whether the language of Const 1963, art 1, § 11 provides broader protection than the Fourth Amendment in this context. Compare People v Lucynski, 509 Mich 618, 634 n 6; 983 NW2d 827 (2022) (noting that Const 1963, art 1, § 11 is interpreted coextensively with the Fourth Amendment unless there is a compelling reason for a different interpretation), with People v Bullock, 440 Mich 15, 30-31; 485 NW2d 866 (1992) (concluding that a textual difference between the Eighth Amendment and Const 1963, art 1, § 16 supported a broader interpretation of our state constitutional provision)."
So really the downside is that the defendant's lawyer didn't raise the state constitutional issue (which looks even clearer).
Who has said this? People are saying that a ruling of the Michigan Supreme Court won't stop Michigan police officers from getting search warrants without limitations? How did these people come to that conclusion?