People of Michigan v. Todd Randolph Van Doorne
153117
| Mich. | Jun 1, 2017Background
- Predawn (around 4:00 a.m. and 5:30 a.m.) unscheduled visits by seven KANET officers to the homes of two suspects (Frederick, Van Doorne) who were under investigation for possession of marijuana butter.
- Officers knocked, woke occupants, questioned them about drugs, read Miranda warnings, and obtained signed consent forms to search the homes.
- Marijuana butter and other contraband were recovered; defendants moved to suppress. Trial court denied suppression, treating the entries as lawful "knock and talks" and the searches as consensual.
- Michigan Court of Appeals (split) upheld the knock-and-talks, reasoning the implied license could cover predawn callers (newspaper/emergency analogies); a dissent argued nighttime visits exceed the implied license.
- Michigan Supreme Court granted review (in lieu of leave), applied Florida v. Jardines and related Fourth Amendment precedent, and concluded the predawn approaches were trespasses combined with information‑gathering (illegal searches). Cases remanded to determine whether later consent was sufficiently attenuated from the illegality.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether predawn "knock and talk" approaches were within the public's implied license (i.e., not a Fourth Amendment search) | Approaches were ordinary knock-and-talks; police may approach, knock, and speak with occupants without a warrant. | Predawn visits were outside normal social norms and thus exceeded the implied license (trespass). | Held: Implied license is time-sensitive and generally does not extend to predawn approaches; these were trespasses. |
| Whether trespass + information‑gathering occurred (Jones/Jardines test) | Even if officers intended to question occupants, approaching and knocking is not a search absent other intrusions. | Officers approached to obtain evidence about drugs, so trespass conjoined with information‑gathering = search. | Held: Officers trespassed while seeking information; that conjoined conduct constituted a Fourth Amendment search. |
| Whether consent obtained after the knock-and-talk validates the searches | Consent renders the subsequent searches lawful; voluntariness controls. | Consent is tainted by the preceding illegal search and may be invalid unless attenuated. | Held: Consent may be an exception only if sufficiently attenuated; remanded to assess attenuation under Brown/Wong Sun factors. |
| Standard/factors for attenuation of consent taint | Not separately addressed at trial because court found no prior violation. | Attenuation requires analysis of temporal proximity, intervening circumstances, and flagrancy/purpose of misconduct. | Held: Apply the three-factor attenuation test (temporal proximity; intervening circumstances; purpose/flagrancy) on remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 (police trespass onto home’s curtilage combined with information‑gathering is a Fourth Amendment search)
- United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (trespass plus 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 tainted by illegality must be suppressed unless sufficiently attenuated)
- Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 (voluntariness of statements/consent does not alone purge Fourth Amendment taint; attenuation factors explained)
- Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452 (knock-and-talk can be permissible when within scope of implied license)
- Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (voluntariness of consent assessed under totality of circumstances)
- Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (dog sniff during lawful stop is not a search when no trespass occurred)