Judge Suppresses Digital Evidence Against Former Wolverine Coach Accused of Hacking Student-Athletes

A federal judge in Michigan has thrown out evidence gathered from a stack of computers, phones and storage devices seized from Matthew Weiss, a former University of Michigan assistant football coach accused of hacking into the online accounts of female college athletes, ruling that the state search warrants used to justify those searches were unconstitutionally broad.

U.S. District Judge David M. Lawson found that the warrants authorized sweeping, open-ended forensic examinations of Weiss' devices without tying the searches to evidence of any particular crime, violating the Fourth Amendment's protections against general searches.

The judge did, however, decline to suppress material obtained from Weiss' Apple iCloud account, finding that a separate federal warrant obtained later gave investigators an independent and valid basis to search that data.

The ruling represents a major win for Weiss, who was indicted in 2025 on 14 counts of unauthorized computer access and 10 counts of aggravated identity theft. Prosecutors allege the former co-offensive coordinator and quarterbacks coach exploited his access to third-party athletic databases to pull personal information on more than 150,000 student-athletes between 2015 and 2023, then used that information to break into thousands of email, social media and cloud storage accounts.

According to the court's opinion, the investigation began after the University of Michigan noticed a wave of unauthorized password resets tied to alumni accounts in December 2022. That activity was eventually traced back to computers inside an athletic department building, including one located in Weiss' own office.

University investigators also connected password-reset codes to a phone number linked to Weiss and determined that data taken from victims' accounts had been moved onto external storage devices. That evidence formed the basis for search warrants that University of Michigan police obtained, warrants that authorized what the opinion described as full forensic examinations of Weiss' desktop computers, phone, tablet and storage devices.

Judge Lawson found those warrants went well beyond what the Constitution permits, functioning instead as unconstitutional general warrants. He noted the warrants carried no date restrictions and made no attempt to limit the search to a specific type of criminal conduct, instead broadly clearing investigators to dig through photos, videos, emails, text messages, social media activity, deleted files, metadata and location data with no tether to the alleged hacking scheme. Because the categories of material subject to search were so expansive, the judge concluded, the warrants effectively allowed a search of the devices in their entirety.

Federal prosecutors tried to save the evidence by pointing to a separate warrant the FBI later obtained covering many of the same devices, arguing that the warrant provided independent legal grounds even if the state warrants were flawed. Judge Lawson rejected that reasoning, noting that University of Michigan investigators had already told the FBI about spreadsheets identifying victims from more than 30 universities, along with Social Security numbers and explicit photographs, well before agents sought their own warrant. The judge said it was clear that information influenced the FBI's decision to pursue a warrant, and prosecutors failed to show agents would have sought it regardless.

The government also argued that investigators acted in good faith because a state prosecutor and magistrate had signed off on the original warrants. Judge Lawson was unpersuaded, citing Supreme Court precedent holding that good-faith reliance does not excuse warrants so obviously deficient that no reasonable officer could believe them valid. He added that any restraint investigators showed in practice came from their own judgment, not from any limits actually written into the warrants themselves.

Prosecutors further argued Weiss had no reasonable expectation of privacy on university-owned equipment, but the judge disagreed, finding that university policies permitting occasional workplace inspections did not strip Weiss of his constitutional protections against police searches.

Because Weiss was the sole user of his password-protected office computer, work phone and iPad, and stored both personal and professional material on them, Judge Lawson concluded he retained a legitimate privacy interest in those devices.

The iCloud evidence fell into a different category. Weiss had argued Apple handed over files dating back to 2020, well outside the window authorized by the state warrant, but the judge found no proof that the extra material influenced either the FBI's decision to seek its own warrant or the federal magistrate's decision to approve it.

The criminal case is set for trial on September 22 in federal court in Detroit.