People v. Frederick; And People v. Van Doorne

Michigan Supreme Court

People v. Frederick; And People v. Van Doorne

879 N.W.2d 649, 499 Mich. 952, 2016 Mich. LEXIS 1109

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedJune 10, 2016

Docket153115 and 153117

StatusPublished

This text of 879 N.W.2d 649 (People v. Frederick; And People v. Van Doorne) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Frederick; And People v. Van Doorne, 879 N.W.2d 649, 499 Mich. 952, 2016 Mich. LEXIS 1109 (Mich. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

reported below: 313 Mich App 457. The parties shall file supplemental briefs within 42 days of the date of this order addressing: (1) whether the knock-and-talk procedures employed by the law enforcement officers violated the general public’s implied license to approach the defendants’ residences and constituted unconstitutional searches in violation of the Fourth Amendment, see Florida v Jardines, 569 US _; 133 S Ct 1409, 1416 n 3, 1422; 185 L Ed 2d 495 (2013); (2) whether the conduct of the law enforcement officers “objectively reveals a purpose to conduct a search” to obtain evidence without the necessity of obtaining a warrant, id. at 1417; and (3) whether the conduct of the law enforcement officers was coercive, see United States v Spotted Elk, 548 F3d 641, 655 (CA 8, 2008). The parties should not submit mere restatements of their application papers.

The Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan and the Criminal Defense Attorneys of Michigan are invited to file briefs amicus curiae. Other persons or groups interested in the determination of the issues presented in these cases may move the Court for permission to file briefs amicus curiae.

Motions for permission to file briefs amicus curiae and briefs amicus curiae regarding these two cases should be filed in People v Frederick (Docket No. 153115) only and served on the parties in both cases.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

reported below: 313 Mich App 457. The parties shall file supplemental briefs within 42 days of the date of this order addressing: (1) whether the knock-and-talk procedures employed by the law enforcement officers violated the general public’s implied license to approach the defendants’ residences and constituted unconstitutional searches in violation of the Fourth Amendment, see Florida v Jardines, 569 US _; 133 S Ct 1409, 1416 n 3, 1422; 185 L Ed 2d 495 (2013); (2) whether the conduct of the law enforcement officers “objectively reveals a purpose to conduct a search” to obtain evidence without the necessity of obtaining a warrant, id. at 1417; and (3) whether the conduct of the law enforcement officers was coercive, see United States v Spotted Elk, 548 F3d 641, 655 (CA 8, 2008). The parties should not submit mere restatements of their application papers.

The Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan and the Criminal Defense Attorneys of Michigan are invited to file briefs amicus curiae. Other persons or groups interested in the determination of the issues presented in these cases may move the Court for permission to file briefs amicus curiae.

Motions for permission to file briefs amicus curiae and briefs amicus curiae regarding these two cases should be filed in People v Frederick (Docket No. 153115) only and served on the parties in both cases.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

879 N.W.2d 649, 499 Mich. 952, 2016 Mich. LEXIS 1109, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-frederick-and-people-v-van-doorne-mich-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack