Michigan Search Warrant for Electronic Data Amendment (2018)
| Michigan Search Warrant for Electronic Data Amendment | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Election date November 6, 2018 | |
| Topic Law enforcement | |
| Status Not on the ballot | |
| Type Constitutional amendment | Origin State legislature |
The Michigan Search Warrant for Electronic Data Amendment was not on the ballot in Michigan as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment on November 6, 2018.
The measure would have required the government to obtain a search warrant to access a person's electronic data and electronic communications.[1]
Text of measure
Constitutional changes
- See also: Article I, Michigan Constitution
The measure would have amended Section 11 of Article I of the Michigan Constitution. The following underlined text would have been added, and struck-through text would have been deleted:[1]
The person, houses, papers, and possessions, and electronic data and electronic communications of every person shall be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures. No warrant to search any place or to seize any person or things or to access electronic data or electronic communications shall issue without describing them, nor without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation. The provisions of this section shall not be construed to bar from evidence in any criminal proceeding any narcotic drug, firearm, bomb, explosive or any other dangerous weapon, seized by a peace officer outside the curtilage of any dwelling house in this state.[2]
Background
In Riley v. California (2014), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a warrant is necessary to search a suspect's cellphone during an arrest.[3] According to the House Fiscal Agency, this amendment was proposed to cover data on other types of electronics not addressed in Riley v. California.[4]
Path to the ballot
- See also: Amending the Michigan Constitution
In Michigan, a constitutional amendment must be passed by a two-thirds vote in each chamber of the Michigan State Legislature during one legislative session.
Rep. Jim Runestad (R-44) introduced the amendment into the legislature as House Joint Resolution C on January 31, 2017. The Michigan House of Representatives voted 107 to 0 with one member not voting on May 17, 2017. As there were two vacancies in the state House, 72 votes were needed to pass the amendment.[5]
The amendment did not come up for a vote in the Michigan State Senate.
| Vote in the Michigan House of Representatives | |||
| Requirement: Two-thirds (66.67 percent) vote of all members in each chamber | |||
Number of yes votes required: 72  | |||
| Yes | No | Not voting | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total | 107 | 0 | 1 |
| Total percent | 99.07% | 0% | 00.93% |
| Democrat | 44 | 0 | 1 |
| Republican | 63 | 0 | 0 |
See also
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 Michigan legislature, "House Joint Resolution C," accessed May 17, 2017
- ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source.
- ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Riley v. California," accessed May 17, 2017
- ↑ Michigan Legislature, "House Fiscal Agency for HJR C," accessed May 17, 2017
- ↑ Michigan Legislature, "HJR C Overview," accessed May 17, 2017
 |
State of Michigan Lansing (capital) |
|---|---|
| Elections |
What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2025 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures |
| Government |
Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy |
