People v. Frederick; People v. Van Doorne

I respectfully dissent.

On remand, our Supreme Court directed us to address “whether the ‘knock and talk’ procedure conducted in [these cases] is consistent with US Const, Am IV, as articulated in Florida v Jardines, [569 US_;] 133 S Ct 1409[; 185 L Ed 2d 495] (2013).” People v Frederick, 497 Mich 993 (2015). People v Van Doorne, 497 Mich 993 (2015). The majority interprets this directive to mean that our inquiry is strictly limited to the question whether the knock-and-talk procedure used in these cases amounts to a “search” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, indicating its belief…