CRC: Proposal 2 Adds Constitutional Protections to Electronic Data and Communications

Untitled design (73)

The following was published by the non-partisan Citizens Research Council of Michigan on October 1, 2020. You can view the original article here:

Statewide Ballot Proposal 20-2: Protection of Electronic Data and Communications

Proposal 2 is an amendment to the Michigan Constitution that would add electronic data and electronic communications to the existing protections against unreasonable government search and seizure.

If Proposal 2 is Adopted The Michigan Constitution would provide specific protections to electronic data and communications. Law enforcement would be required to obtain warrants to access information stored in these formats.

If Proposal 2 is Rejected Law enforcement would continue the current practice of seeking warrants to access electronic data and communications based on interpretation of the “Searches and Seizures” provision of the Michigan Constitution and the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution.

Major Issues to Consider Article I of the Michigan Constitution contains many of the personal protections found in the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution. While neither constitution explicitly protects electronic data and communications, Michigan law enforcement agencies mostly treat this information the same as the protections for “persons, houses, papers, and effects/possessions” found in the U.S. and state constitutions. Proposal 2 attempts to remove any ambiguity.

You can view the full memorandum from the Citizens Research Council of Michigan here.

bold fix

Citizens Research Council of Michigan

The Citizens Research Council of Michigan is a privately funded, not-for-profit public affairs research organization that was founded in 1916. Since then, the objective of the Research Council has been to provide factual, unbiased, independent information on significant issues concerning state and local government organization and finance.


  1. Andrew on October 9, 2020 at 8:19 am

    Exactly why this is a necessary provision as we have jurists who prefer to Interpret the Constitution as written with no regard to the passage of 250 years of technological innovation.
    They wish it to not be a living document.

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.


Related Articles