People v. Gingrich
307 Mich. App. 656
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Best Buy performed a diagnostic repair on Gingrich's laptop; during backup, technician saw suspicious file names indicating possible child pornography.
- Deputy Vickery arrived; to view files, the hard drive had to be removed and attached to a computer, enabling opening of the files.
- Police seized the hard drive, the computer, power supply, and nine discs without a search warrant.
- The circuit court suppressed the evidence, ruling no warrant or applicable exception justified the warrantless search.
- The court of appeals affirmed, applying Jardines and Jones to hold the warrantless search of the computer was per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment and Michigan Constitution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the warrantless search of the computer was a Fourth Amendment violation | Gingrich: search conducted without a warrant or exception; improper. | Gingrich: intrusion into computer constituted search; no valid exception. | Yes; search without a warrant or exception was unreasonable. |
| Whether the computer qualifies as a protected “effect”/“possession” | Gingrich: data on computer is protected; intrusion requires warrant. | Gingrich: privacy expectations diminished by voluntary repair; still protected. | Yes; computer is an “effect/possession” requiring warrant or exception. |
| Whether any exception to the warrant requirement applied | Prosecution argued an exception could apply. | No applicable exception justified the search. | No; none of the exceptions applied. |
| Whether a warrant was required before Best Buy attached the drive to another computer | Warrant required to access contents. | No need for warrant due to private search at repair shop. | Warrant required; failure to obtain one violated Fourth Amendment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Katz v United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) (established Katz reasonable-expectation framework for privacy)
- United States v. Jardines, 133 S. Ct. 1409 (2014) (police intrusion on protected property constitutes a search)
- United States v. Jones, 132 S. Ct. 945 (2012) (GPS tracking constitutes a search when invading private property)
- Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473 (2014) (warrant requirement applies to digital information on devices)