LANSING – Lost amid the slew of
conference committees approving budgets last week, a joint resolution extending
the Michigan Constitution’s prohibition against unreasonable government search
and seizures to electronic data and communications was sent to the House floor.
N was unanimously reported by the House Criminal Justice Committee. The
resolution would need two-thirds support in both the House and Senate, and
would need to be approved by voters in November 2016.
Gideon D’Assandro, spokesperson for
House Speaker
Kevin Cotter (R-Mount Pleasant), did not indicate when the resolution would
come up for a full House vote, saying the chamber does not take up
constitutional amendments often.
“This is an important issue and
one that needs to be addressed nationwide,” Mr. D’Assandro said.
“That said, it is too early to say when we will be taking it up. We don’t
often tackle resolutions like this, so members are going to need more time to
learn about the implications and research the issue.”
Rosie Jones, spokesperson for the
House Democrats, said it also was too soon for a caucus position on the matter,
and Rep.
Vanessa Guerra (D-Bridgeport), minority vice chair of the House Criminal
Justice Committee, could not be reached Monday.
But Department of State Police
legislative liaison Amy Dehner said Monday the change is unnecessary.
“I would say that the way
Article I reads, that is already protected,” Dehner said about
electronic data and communications. The department is opposed to the bill, but
continuing discussions with legislators, she said.
Article I, Section 11 of the
Constitution reads, in part: “The person, houses, papers and possessions
of every person shall be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures. No
warrant to search any place or to seize any person or things shall issue
without describing them, nor without probable cause, supported by oath or
affirmation.”
The resolution would add electronic data or communications to both sentences. Currently, Attorney
General Bill Schuette‘s office is reviewing the proposal, and the American
Civil Liberties Union of Michigan is supportive.
Dehner said the MSP also feels
the resolution is too broad as worded, and the department is worried about
unintended consequences.
“We’re still opposed to it
primarily because, the way it is worded, we feel like it is unnecessary, and
additional language about accessing data is broad, and we don’t know how it is
going to apply,” she said.
This story was published by Gongwer
News Service. To subscribe, click on www.gongwer.com





