895 N.W.2d 541
Mich.2017Background
- Predawn (around 4:00 a.m. and 5:30 a.m.) unscheduled visits by seven narcotics officers to the homes of two county-corrections employees suspected of possessing marijuana butter.
- Officers knocked, woke occupants, questioned each defendant about drugs, read Miranda warnings, and obtained written consent to search. Marijuana butter and other contraband were found.
- Trial court denied motions to suppress, treating the approaches as lawful "knock and talks" and the subsequent searches as consensual.
- Court of Appeals majority affirmed; a dissent argued predawn visits fell outside the public's implied license.
- Michigan Supreme Court granted review and focused on whether the predawn approach exceeded the Fourth Amendment protections described in Florida v. Jardines.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Were predawn "knock and talk" approaches a nonsearch under the Fourth Amendment? | Approaches were ordinary knock-and-talks; not searches because officers merely did what any private citizen might do. | Predawn timing placed the visits outside the public's implied license; officers trespassed on curtilage while seeking information. | Held: Scope of implied license is time-sensitive and generally does not extend to predawn approaches; officers trespassed and conducted searches. |
| Does information-gathering during such an approach convert a trespass into a Fourth Amendment search? | Gathering information by speaking at the door is not a search if within implied license. | When information-gathering is conjoined with a trespass, a search occurs. | Held: Information-gathering plus trespass = Fourth Amendment search (Jones/Jardines framework). |
| Were the consent searches valid despite the illegal approach? | Consent rendered the subsequent searches lawful if voluntariness is shown. | Consent is tainted by the illegal entry and must be suppressed unless sufficiently attenuated. | Held: Consent is an exception only if sufficiently attenuated; remanded to determine attenuation under Brown/Wong Sun factors. |
| What factors govern attenuation of consent after an illegal search? | Government relied on voluntariness standard alone. | Defendants urged application of attenuation factors to purge taint of illegality. | Held: Apply three-factor Brown test (temporal proximity; intervening circumstances; flagrancy/purpose of misconduct) to decide attenuation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. (use of drug-sniffing dog at front door exceeded implied license and was a search)
- Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452 (knock-and-talk conduct is permissible when within public's implied license)
- United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (trespass + information-gathering can constitute a search)
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (Fourth Amendment protects people and privacy expectations)
- Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (evidence after illegal search is tainted unless purged by attenuation)
- Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 (attenuation factors for statements and consent after illegal arrest)
- Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (voluntariness test for consent under totality of circumstances)
- Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (dog sniff during lawful stop is not a search absent trespass)
- United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (no expectation of privacy in movements on public roads)
- Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170 (open-fields doctrine distinguishing curtilage from unprotected open fields)