People v. Frohriep

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• recognizing that the trial court makes factual findings when it determines whether a consent to search was valid
• holding no illegal seizure where police approached defendant in his yard and asked permission to look around for drugs; evidence showed defendant not threatened or coerced
• “We conclude that in the context of knock and talk the mere fact that the officers initiated contact with a citizen does not implicate constitutional protections.”
• “We conclude that in the context of knock and talk the mere fact that the officers initiated contact with a citizen does not implicate constitutional protections.”
• quotation 3 As a preliminary matter, the prosecution has not raised whether defendant had standing to challenge the warrantless search of the basement under the Fourth Amendment. See Minnesota v Olson, 495 US 91, 96-97; 110 S Ct 1684; 109 L Ed 2d 85 (1990
• Oakland County Road Commission was codefendant

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).