Computer Crimes
Computer crime prosecutions rest on digital forensics — how data was imaged, how it was interpreted, and whether it can be attributed to a particular person. We work with independent computer forensics professionals to examine how the evidence was collected and analyzed, and to identify the gaps between what the data shows and what the prosecution says it proves.
Michigan computer crime law.
Michigan's computer crime provisions are collected at MCL 752.791 et seq., which address unauthorized access to computers, computer systems, and computer networks, and the use of a computer to commit or attempt a crime. Related conduct — identity theft, online harassment, and fraud — is charged under separate Michigan statutes. Which statute applies, and what maximum penalty comes with it, depends on the conduct alleged and, in some provisions, the amount of loss claimed.
Digital evidence is not as settled as investigators sometimes suggest. IP addresses identify networks rather than people, shared connections create attribution problems, malware can generate activity without the device owner's knowledge, and errors in evidence collection can affect whether the digital case is admissible at all.
What the statute allows.
| Offense | Maximum Penalty |
|---|---|
| Unauthorized access to a computer, system, or network MCL 752.791 et seq. | The offense level and maximum term depend on the provision charged and the loss alleged |
| Identity theft Michigan identity theft statutes | The offense level and maximum term depend on the conduct alleged and any prior convictions |
| Cyberstalking and online harassment Michigan Penal Code | The offense level and maximum term depend on the conduct alleged and any prior convictions |
The statute and subsection charged determine the maximum penalty. To discuss the specific provision and maximum that apply to your case, call (734) 887-6200 for a confidential consultation. This table is a general summary, not legal advice about your case.
Our computer crime defense strategies.
Independent Forensic Review
We retain certified forensic analysts to review the prosecution's digital evidence collection methodology, examine chain of custody documentation, and determine whether the imaging, analysis, and interpretation of digital media followed accepted forensic standards.
Attribution Challenges
An IP address identifies a network, not a person. Shared Wi-Fi, VPN endpoints, and compromised routers all create attribution uncertainty. We examine whether online conduct can fairly be linked to a specific individual on the evidence the prosecution actually has.
Fourth Amendment and Warrant Challenges
Search warrants for digital devices must describe what investigators may search for and seize. Overbroad warrants, general exploratory searches of entire hard drives, and access beyond the authorized scope can support a motion to suppress the digital evidence.
Malware and Third-Party Access
Activity attributed to a device does not always originate with its owner. We examine whether the device was compromised by malware, used by another person, or accessed remotely, and present that evidence against the knowing or intentional conduct the statute requires.
Computer crime questions answered.
My devices were seized. What happens next?
Can I be charged even if I didn't intend to commit a crime?
What is a proffer agreement and should I sign one?
Speak with an Ann Arbor computer crime lawyer.
Digital evidence requires careful technical review. We retain forensic experts when the case calls for them.