Editor's note: This is the first in a two-part series.

In Pearce v. Emmi, No. 16-11499, 2017 BL153011 (E.D. Mich., Southern Div. May 8), the plaintiff, both individually and as “next friend” of her infant child, brought suit against the defendant, a member of the Oakland County Sheriff's Office (OCSO) who had led a search involving narcotics trafficking and which, inter alia, led to the seizure of three electronic devices from one Cody Furhman, the plaintiff's fiancé. The plaintiff claimed that one of the devices had been at the defendant's residence when it was used to activate an application that directed a monitor in the plaintiff's home to stream audio and visual of the plaintiff—who was nude breastfeeding her infant—to the device, in violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, the Federal Wiretapping Act, and provisions of Michigan state law. The district court, ruling on a motion for reconsideration made by the defendant and nonparty OCSO after the magistrate had issued his opinion and order in February, made some findings and drew some legal conclusions that, in many ways, defy common sense. Exploration of those findings and conclusions can help clarify how the court should have ruled.

|

Background

The plaintiff alleged that a “Nest Cam” application had been installed on the iPhone of her fiancé. As the court explained, Nest Cam is an electronic monitor that provides a live audio visual stream. The monitor pairs with an application that users download onto electronic devices like cellphones and tablets. The monitor has a motion sensor and sends a notification to the application installed on the user's electronic devices when it detects motion in the room. After receiving such a notification, the user may open the application and observe the audio and video captured by the monitor. The monitor has a small green light, which flashes when the audio/visual live stream is monitored through the Nest Cam application on an electronic device.

The plaintiff claimed that she had downloaded the Nest Cam application on three devices, including her fiancé's iPhone. On or about March 2, 2016, The defendant led a search that resulted in the plaintiff's fiancé's arrest and the seizure of his iPhone. Per the court, the iPhone was “purportedly logged into the Oakland County Jail Computer Crime Lab that same day.”