In U.S. v. Smith, No. 2:25-CR-20824-TGB-APP (E.D. Mich. June 15, 2026), Michigan District Judge Terrence G. Berg denied Defendant’s motion to suppress all evidence obtained by the police as a result of their warrantless entry into his home, and his statements made in the post-Miranda interview the following day, rejecting an AI-generated transcript mistake that seemed to indicate that he requested an attorney during the interview.

Case Discussion and Judge’s Ruling

In this case where the defendant was arrested and eventually charged with the sexual exploitation of children and possession of child pornography, two Taylor police detectives (Philip Collup and Phillip Wengrowski) conducted an interview with the defendant the day after he was arrested.

When the defendant and the detectives returned to the interview room after a bathroom break, the detectives presented him with a printed copy of his Miranda rights and had him initial each right to show he understood it. Detective Collup began to read the Miranda rights out loud to the defendant.

In a footnote to the order, Judge Berg stated: “The government provided an AI-generated transcript of this interview to the defense, which has also been provided to the Court. This transcript was not reviewed or verified by a court reporter but was provided for convenience in following the audio recording.”

Continuing, he said: “The Court also reviewed the audio recording of the interview. The transcript records Smith as saying ‘But I need to have an attorney here.’…This is not correct, however, because in the audio recording it is clear that Smith asked the question, ‘Do I need to have an attorney here?’”

Ultimately, the interview proceeded with the defendant never explicitly requesting a lawyer.

Judge Berg stated: “An invocation of the right to counsel must be clear, unambiguous, and unequivocal before an interrogation must end… A ‘reference to an attorney that is ambiguous or equivocal in that a reasonable officer in light of the circumstances would have understood only that the suspect might be invoking the right to counsel’ does not require police to cease their questioning… Thus, ‘[s]imply mentioning the prospect of talking with an attorney, or waiting to talk until one is present, is not sufficient’”.

As a result, Judge Berg ruled: “The Court therefore finds that Smith did not unambiguously invoke his right to counsel during his August 1, 2025 interrogation… The Court therefore finds that Smith knowingly and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights.”

Even though there was an AI-generated transcript mistake, Judge Berg’s review of the audio recording of the interview avoided having the mistake impact the ruling, preserving the admissibility of digital evidence sourced from an Apple iPhone, WhatsApp, and body-worn camera systems, which included recorded videos, text conversations, cell phone location ping data and audio recordings.

So, what do you think? Are you concerned about reliability after an AI-generated transcript mistake like this? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Case opinion link courtesy of Minerva26, an Affinity partner of eDiscovery Today.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by my employer, my partners or my clients. eDiscovery Today is made available solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Today should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.