The Michigan Supreme Court decided Wednesday to hear a case that could determine how police officers are allowed to use the “knock-and-talk” strategy to gain entry to a person’s home without a warrant.
The case comes from two former correctional officers, Todd Van Doorne and Mike Fredrick, and it has reached the Michigan Supreme Court after two years and multiple appeal filings.
The case had initially been dismissed due to a previous Court of Appeals ruling. The ruling had stated that the knock-and-talk procedure undertaken by Kent Area Narcotics Enforcement Team (KANET) to enter the respective homes of Van Doorne and Fredrick had not violated the Fourth Amendment. The ruling was based on a similar case that had taken place in Florida, Florida v. Jardines.
Van Doorne’s attorney Bruce Block told FOX 17 that he believes this case could have implications beyond the Michigan state border as the boundaries of the Fourth Amendment are looked into further.
These knock-and-talk procedures are used often by KANET in Michigan. A typical knock-and-talk process involves two or more police men approaching a civilian’s home with the purpose of obtaining entrance in order to search without a warrant.
Police have found they are more likely to be allowed to search the residence if they strike up a conversation with the home owner before asking for entry.
However, it is the way in which the county police approached the homes of Van Doorne and Fredrick that raises questions as to whether or not KANET’s actions violated the two men’s Fourth Amendment rights.
Kent County police had arrived at the homes of the two former correctional officers after Timothy and Alyssa Scherzer confessed to both possessing marijuana, and selling marijuana butter to Fredrick and Van Doorne.
After arresting the Scherzers, police prepared to go to Van Doorne’s home without a warrant. A group of officers, including the lieutenant and sergeant, appeared on Van Doorne’s porch at 4 a.m. wearing tactical vests and carrying holstered weapons.
The officers proceeded to tell Van Doorne that he had come up in a criminal investigation, and they asked permission to enter the home. Van Doorne conceded and even told the men that he had in his possession marijuana in the form of pot butter.
The police proceeded to do the same to Fredrick when they appeared at his home at 5:30 a.m.
Block described the ordeal as “simply outside the bounds of what is allowable,” when he spoke with FOX 17, and continued to say that the way in which the knock-and-talk was conducted led each family to feel terrorized by the county police.
Block’s argument will hinge on his ability to prove that KANET did not have implied consent to enter onto the property of either man due to the early hours and that Van Doorne and Fredrick were unable to deny the police access as they were superiors to them in the workplace.
The court will hear arguments to determine whether the knock-and-talk in this instance was unconstitutional and whether the officers conducting the knock-and-talk made it clear to the two men that their goal was to search the men’s homes, and it will decide on whether the officers involved were coercive toward Van Doorne and Fredrick.
The trial is set to take place this July.