MI: Nighttime entry onto curtilage was reasonable because officers were responding to a dangerous situation

Officers approached defendant’s house for a knock-and-talk at 10:43 pm. There is no implied license to enter the curtilage at that time, but here it was because officers were responding to a report of a dangerous situation, and that made it reasonable. People v. ASK, 2025 Mich. App. LEXIS 2161 (Mar. 19, 2025) (unpublished):

Respondents argue that the officers were trespassing based exclusively on the time that the officers approached respondents’ front door—they contend that the public, in the abstract, does not have an implied license to knock on a home’s door at 10:43 p.m., so the officers here likewise lacked an implied license to approach at that time. As we read Frederick, however, it says that time is but one factor courts are to consider when determining whether a knock and talk exceeded the scope of the public’s implied license to approach a front door. See Frederick, 500 Mich at 239 n 6 (declining to “decide precisely what time the implied license to approach begins and ends,” opting instead to decide that, in the case before it, “there were no circumstances that would lead a reasonable member of the public to believe that the occupants of the respective homes welcomed visitors at 4:00 a.m. or 5:30 a.m.”). While the time of a knock and talk may, in some circumstances, be more relevant than other factors, it is still only one factor that courts should consider as part of the totality of the circumstances surrounding the knock and talk. And considering all of the factors discussed above, we conclude that the officers did not trespass when they entered the curtilage of respondents’ home to perform a knock and talk. For that reason, the officers’ conduct did not implicate the Fourth Amendment.