People of Michigan v. Michael Christopher Frederick
Unpublished - cited in syllabus as People v Frederick, 497 Mich 993 (2015); People v Van Doorne, 497 Mich 993 (2015) and People v Frederick, 313 Mich App 457 (2015). This Supreme Court opinion is not yet cited with a specific volume/page number in the provided text. (2017)
Rule of Law:
The scope of the implied license allowing public access to a home for a 'knock and talk' is time-sensitive and generally does not extend to predawn approaches. When police officers trespass on Fourth-Amendment-protected property while seeking information, they conduct a search in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
Facts:
- Seven officers from the Kent Area Narcotics Enforcement Team (KANET) made unscheduled visits to the homes of Michael Frederick and Todd Van Doorne.
- Officers knocked on Frederick’s door around 4:00 a.m. and on Van Doorne’s door around 5:30 a.m. on March 18, 2014.
- Officers woke Frederick and Van Doorne, as well as their families, who were surprised and alarmed by the intrusions.
- The officers questioned Frederick and Van Doorne about marijuana butter they suspected the defendants possessed.
- Frederick and Van Doorne subsequently consented to a search of their respective homes after being read their Miranda rights.
- Marijuana butter and other marijuana products were recovered from each defendant's home.
Procedural Posture:
- Michael Frederick and Todd Van Doorne were separately charged with various drug offenses in the Kent Circuit Court.
- Defendants moved to suppress the evidence, but the Kent Circuit Court, Dennis B. Leiber, J., denied both motions.
- Defendants sought interlocutory leave to appeal, which the Michigan Court of Appeals denied in separate unpublished orders.
- Defendants then sought leave to appeal in the Michigan Supreme Court.
- The Michigan Supreme Court, in lieu of granting leave to appeal, remanded the cases to the Court of Appeals for consideration as on leave granted, directing it to address whether the 'knock and talk' procedure was consistent with the Fourth Amendment as articulated in Florida v. Jardines.
- The Michigan Court of Appeals consolidated the two cases and issued a split opinion, with the majority concluding the officers' predawn visits were within the scope of the public’s implied license, while a dissenting judge concluded the police conduct violated the Fourth Amendment.
- Defendants sought leave to appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court, which ordered and heard oral argument on whether to grant the application or take other action.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a police 'knock and talk' procedure conducted during predawn hours, where officers approach a home to gather information, exceed the scope of the public's implied license to enter private property, thereby constituting an unconstitutional search under the Fourth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice McCormack
Yes, a police 'knock and talk' conducted during predawn hours, when officers approach a home to gather information, exceeds the scope of the public's implied license to enter private property and constitutes an unconstitutional search under the Fourth Amendment. The court reasoned that the proper scope of a 'knock and talk' is defined by the implied license granted to the general public, such as solicitors or hawkers. This implied license, however, is time-sensitive and generally does not extend to predawn approaches because background social norms do not invite such late-night or early-morning visits. When officers approach a home at such hours, they stray beyond what any private citizen might do, thereby trespassing on Fourth-Amendment-protected property (the curtilage of the home), as articulated in Florida v. Jardines. Citing United States v. Jones, a Fourth Amendment search occurs when a trespass on a protected area is 'conjoined with... an attempt to find something or to obtain information.' Here, the officers were plainly seeking information about suspected marijuana butter. The fact that they intended to gather information by speaking with the homeowners, rather than by other means, does not alter the analysis when combined with the trespass. Therefore, the predawn approaches were illegal warrantless searches. The court further clarified that while consent searches are an exception to the warrant requirement if voluntary, such consent is invalid if it is not 'sufficiently attenuated' from an initial illegal search. Because the trial court had not addressed the attenuation of consent from the illegal search, the case was remanded for that determination.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the temporal boundaries of the 'knock and talk' doctrine, establishing that predawn police visits generally constitute an unlawful trespass and, when combined with information-gathering, an unconstitutional search. By grounding its reasoning in the property-rights framework of Jardines and Jones, the Michigan Supreme Court reinforces the sanctity of the home against warrantless government intrusion during hours typically associated with privacy and rest. The ruling underscores that police power to interact with citizens at their homes is limited by societal norms and cannot be used to circumvent the warrant requirement. It also serves as a crucial reminder of the attenuation doctrine's role in determining the admissibility of evidence obtained subsequent to an illegal search, even if consent was later given.
