Whether the Fourth Amendment applies to knock and talk encounters

QUESTIONS PRESENTED This Court has held that “[w]hen law enforcement officers who are not armed with a warrant knock on a door, they do no more than any private citizen might do.” Kentucky v King, 563 US 452, 469-70; 131 S Ct 1849; 179 LEd2d 865 (2011). Two years later, this Court noted “the unsurprising proposition that [law enforcement] officers could have lawfully approached {a] home to knock on the front door in hopes of speaking with [the occupant].” Florida v Jardines, 569 US 1, 8n 1; 133 S Ct 1409; 185 LEd2d 495 (2013). In the process of holding that the police could not search the curtilage of a home with a drug-sniffing dog without a warrant or an exception to the warrant requirement, this Court noted that it was not typically hard to figure out the scope of a person’s implied license to approach a home. “Complying with the terms of that traditional invitation does not require fine-grained legal knowledge; it is generally managed without incident by the Nation’s Girl Scouts and trick-or-treaters.” Id. at 8. The questions presented are: 1. Whether the Fourth Amendment applies to knock and talk encounters. 2. If yes, whether the Michigan Supreme Court correctly held that a predawn visit constitutes a constitutional trespass in violation of the implied license to approach. ii QUESTIONS PRESENTED—Continued 3. If yes, whether the Michigan Supreme Court correctly held that “any attempt to gather information,” including simply asking the occupants for consent to search, combined with a constitutional trespass, constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment.