Case Name: PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dennis Keith TOWNE, Defendant-Appellant.
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 2019-03-29
Citations: 924 N.W.2d 250
Docket Number: SC: 157210; COA: 322820
Parties: PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Dennis Keith TOWNE, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Western Reporter 2d
Volume: 924
Pages: 250–250

Head Matter:
PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Dennis Keith TOWNE, Defendant-Appellant.
SC: 157210
COA: 322820
Supreme Court of Michigan.
March 29, 2019
Order

Opinion:
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 19, 2017 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered. We direct the Clerk to schedule oral argument on the application. MCR 7.305(H)(1).
The appellant shall file a supplemental brief within 42 days of the date of this order addressing: (1) whether the police exceeded the proper scope of a knock and talk when they approached and secured the defendant's home at night while attempting to execute an arrest warrant for the defendant's son, who lived elsewhere, see People v. Frederick , 500 Mich. 228, 895 N.W.2d 541 (2017) ; (2) whether the police had sufficient grounds to believe that the subject of the arrest warrant was inside the defendant's home; (3) the appropriate standard to be used by a reviewing court to determine whether the police are permitted to enter a third-party's home or curtilage to execute an arrest warrant, see Steagald v. United States , 451 U.S. 204, 101 S.Ct. 1642, 68 L.Ed.2d 38 (1981) ; United States v. Pruitt , 458 F.3d 477 (C.A.6, 2006) ; United States v. Hardin , 539 F.3d 404 (C.A.6, 2008) ; (4) if the proper scope of a knock and talk was not exceeded in this case, whether the plain view or exigent circumstances exceptions to the warrant requirement permitted the police to forcibly enter the defendant's home based on an officer's perceptions while posted at the rear of the home in the curtilage or in an "open field"; and (5) whether the exclusionary rule should apply under these circumstances.
In addition to the brief, the appellant shall electronically file an appendix conforming to MCR 7.312(D)(2). In the brief, citations to the record must provide the appendix page numbers as required by MCR 7.312(B)(1). The appellee shall file a supplemental brief within 21 days of being served with the appellant's brief. The appellee shall also electronically file an appendix, or in the alternative, stipulate to the use of the appendix filed by the appellant. A reply, if any, must be filed by the appellant within 14 days of being served with the appellee's brief. The parties should not submit mere restatements of their application papers.
The Criminal Defense Attorneys of Michigan and the Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan are invited to file briefs amicus curiae. Other persons or groups interested in the determination of the issues presented in this case may move the Court for permission to file briefs amicus curiae.