People v. Frederick; People v. Van Doorne
Michigan Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the CourtTalbot, C. J.
These consolidated cases are before us on remand from our Supreme Court.1 On remand, our Supreme Court has directed us to consider “whether the ‘knock and talk’ procedure [s] conducted in th[ese] case[s are] consistent with US Const, Am IV, as articulated in Florida v Jardines, [569 US_;] 133 S Ct 1409[; 185 L Ed 2d 495] (2013).” For the reasons discussed, we conclude that the knock-and-talk procedures conducted with respect to both Frederick and Van Doorne were consistent with the Fourth Amendment. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s decision.
I. FACTS
On March 17, 2014, at approximately…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Kyllo v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2001
- Florida v. JardinesSupreme Court of the United States · 2013
- Kentucky v. KingSupreme Court of the United States · 2011
- United States v. JonesSupreme Court of the United States · 2012
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- State of Tennessee v. James Robert Christensen, Jr.Tennessee Supreme Court · 2017
- Burnsville Medical Building, LLC, Relator v. County of DakotaSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2025
- People of Michigan v. Dwight Lemar YoungMichigan Court of Appeals · 2017
- People of Michigan v. Michael Christopher FrederickMichigan Supreme Court · 2017
- People of Michigan v. Todd Randolph Van DoorneMichigan Supreme Court · 2017
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.