Katz test in Michigan

5 Michigan opinions name it 1 courts 1991–2022 3 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Michigan courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (3)

Case	Followed	Cited
Florida v. Jardinesgreen scotus · 2013 · cited in 3 Michigan opinions naming this issue, 2022–2022 2 sentences 2022And since it does so by physically intruding on a subject’s body, it effects a Fourth Amendment search.” Id. at 310. 3 Because the trespass doctrine exists alongside the Katz test, the Katz test “is unnecessary to consider when the government gains evidence by physically intruding on constitutionally protected areas.” Jardines, 569 US at 11 . 2022And since it does so by physically intruding on a subject’s body, it effects a Fourth Amendment search.” Id. at 310. 3 Because the trespass doctrine exists alongside the Katz test, the Katz test “is unnecessary to consider when the government gains evidence by physically intruding on constitutionally protected areas.” Jardines, 569 US at 11 .	3	3
Laborers Health & Welfare Trust Fund v. Advanced Lightweight Concrete Co.green scotus · 1988 · cited in 1 Michigan opinions naming this issue, 1993–1993 2 sentences 1993See, e.g., Laborers Health and Welfare Trust Fund v Advanced Lightweight Concrete Co, 484 US 539, 544, n 6 ; 108 S Ct 830 ; 98 L Ed 2d 936 (1988). [Litton, 111 S Ct 2221 .] Among the mandatory subjects of bargaining is grievance resolution, including arbitration, United States Gypsum Co v Int’l Woodworkers of America, CIO, 94 NLRB 112 , 131 (1951). 9 While the nlrb has ruled that most mandatory subjects of bargaining are within the Katz rule, it has created several exceptions, among which is grievance arbitration, Hilton-Davis Chemical Co v Int’l Chemical Workers Union, 185 NLRB 241 (1970). 1993See, e.g., Laborers Health and Welfare Trust Fund v Advanced Lightweight Concrete Co, 484 US 539, 544, n 6 ; 108 S Ct 830 ; 98 L Ed 2d 936 (1988). [Litton, 111 S Ct 2221 .] Among the mandatory subjects of bargaining is grievance resolution, including arbitration, United States Gypsum Co v Int’l Woodworkers of America, CIO, 94 NLRB 112 , 131 (1951). 9 While the nlrb has ruled that most mandatory subjects of bargaining are within the Katz rule, it has created several exceptions, among which is grievance arbitration, Hilton-Davis Chemical Co v Int’l Chemical Workers Union, 185 NLRB 241 (1970).	1	1
United States v. Knottsgreen scotus · 1983 · cited in 1 Michigan opinions naming this issue, 1991–1991 2 sentences 1991See United States v Knotts, 460 US 276 ; 103 S Ct 1081 ; 75 L Ed 2d 55 (1983) (explaining the Katz test). 1991See United States v Knotts, 460 US 276 ; 103 S Ct 1081 ; 75 L Ed 2d 55 (1983) (explaining the Katz test).	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (10)

Case	Cited	Years
United States v. Jones green scotus · 2012 2 sentences 2022However, the United States Supreme Court recently clarified that an individual’s “Fourth Amendment rights do not rise or fall with the Katz formulation.” Jones, 565 US at 406 . 2022However, the United States Supreme Court recently clarified that an individual’s “Fourth Amendment rights do not rise or fall with the Katz formulation.” Jones, 565 US at 406 .	3	2022–2022
Kyllo v. United States green scotus · 2001 2 sentences 2022The Katz test states that “a Fourth Amendment search occurs when the government violates a subjective expectation of privacy that society recognizes as reasonable.” Kyllo v United States, 533 US 27, 33 ; 121 S Ct 2038 ; 150 L Ed 2d 94 (2011), citing Katz, 389 US at 361 . 2022The Katz test states that “a Fourth Amendment search occurs when the government violates a subjective expectation of privacy that society recognizes as reasonable.” Kyllo v United States, 533 US 27, 33 ; 121 S Ct 2038 ; 150 L Ed 2d 94 (2011), citing Katz, 389 US at 361 .	3	2022–2022
Katz v. United States green scotus · 1967 2 sentences 2022The Katz test states that “a Fourth Amendment search occurs when the government violates a subjective expectation of privacy that society recognizes as reasonable.” Kyllo v United States, 533 US 27, 33 ; 121 S Ct 2038 ; 150 L Ed 2d 94 (2011), citing Katz, 389 US at 361 . 2022The Katz test states that “a Fourth Amendment search occurs when the government violates a subjective expectation of privacy that society recognizes as reasonable.” Kyllo v United States, 533 US 27, 33 ; 121 S Ct 2038 ; 150 L Ed 2d 94 (2011), citing Katz, 389 US at 361 .	3	2022–2022
Grady v. North Carolina green scotus · 2015 2 sentences 2022And since it does so by physically intruding on a subject’s body, it effects a Fourth Amendment search.” Id. at 310 . 3 Because the trespass doctrine exists alongside the Katz test, the Katz test “is unnecessary to consider when the government gains evidence by physically intruding on constitutionally protected areas.” Jardines, 569 US at 11 . 2022And since it does so by physically intruding on a subject’s body, it effects a Fourth Amendment search.” Id. at 310 . 3 Because the trespass doctrine exists alongside the Katz test, the Katz test “is unnecessary to consider when the government gains evidence by physically intruding on constitutionally protected areas.” Jardines, 569 US at 11 .	1	2022–2022
People v. Smith green mich · 1984 2 sentences 1991In People v Smith, 420 Mich 1 ; 360 NW2d 841 (1984), this Court adopted the Katz test for purposes of determining the interests protected by Const 1963, art 1, § 11. 1991In People v Smith, 420 Mich 1 ; 360 NW2d 841 (1984), this Court adopted the Katz test for purposes of determining the interests protected by Const 1963, art 1, § 11.	1	1991–1991
Silverman v. United States green scotus · 1961 2 sentences 1991For example, see Warden v Hayden, 387 US 294, 304 ; 87 S Ct 1642 ; 18 L Ed 2d 782 (1967); Wong Sun v United States, 371 US 471 ; 83 S Ct 407 ; 9 L Ed 2d 441 (1963); Silverman v United States, 365 US 505 ; 81 S Ct 679 ; 5 L Ed 2d 734 (1961); Jones v United States, 362 US 257 ; 80 S Ct 725 ; 4 L Ed 2d 697 (1960). [15] See United States v Knotts, 460 US 276 ; 103 S Ct 1081 ; 75 L Ed 2d 55 (1983) (explaining the Katz test). [16] In People v Smith, 420 Mich 1 ; 360 NW2d 841 (1984), this Court adopted the Katz test for purposes of determining the interests protected by Const 1963, art 1, § 11. [17] 1991For example, see Warden v Hayden, 387 US 294, 304 ; 87 S Ct 1642 ; 18 L Ed 2d 782 (1967); Wong Sun v United States, 371 US 471 ; 83 S Ct 407 ; 9 L Ed 2d 441 (1963); Silverman v United States, 365 US 505 ; 81 S Ct 679 ; 5 L Ed 2d 734 (1961); Jones v United States, 362 US 257 ; 80 S Ct 725 ; 4 L Ed 2d 697 (1960). [15] See United States v Knotts, 460 US 276 ; 103 S Ct 1081 ; 75 L Ed 2d 55 (1983) (explaining the Katz test). [16] In People v Smith, 420 Mich 1 ; 360 NW2d 841 (1984), this Court adopted the Katz test for purposes of determining the interests protected by Const 1963, art 1, § 11. [17]	1	1991–1991
Warden, Maryland Penitentiary v. Hayden green scotus · 1967 2 sentences 1991For example, see Warden v Hayden, 387 US 294, 304 ; 87 S Ct 1642 ; 18 L Ed 2d 782 (1967); Wong Sun v United States, 371 US 471 ; 83 S Ct 407 ; 9 L Ed 2d 441 (1963); Silverman v United States, 365 US 505 ; 81 S Ct 679 ; 5 L Ed 2d 734 (1961); Jones v United States, 362 US 257 ; 80 S Ct 725 ; 4 L Ed 2d 697 (1960). [15] See United States v Knotts, 460 US 276 ; 103 S Ct 1081 ; 75 L Ed 2d 55 (1983) (explaining the Katz test). [16] In People v Smith, 420 Mich 1 ; 360 NW2d 841 (1984), this Court adopted the Katz test for purposes of determining the interests protected by Const 1963, art 1, § 11. [17] 1991For example, see Warden v Hayden, 387 US 294, 304 ; 87 S Ct 1642 ; 18 L Ed 2d 782 (1967); Wong Sun v United States, 371 US 471 ; 83 S Ct 407 ; 9 L Ed 2d 441 (1963); Silverman v United States, 365 US 505 ; 81 S Ct 679 ; 5 L Ed 2d 734 (1961); Jones v United States, 362 US 257 ; 80 S Ct 725 ; 4 L Ed 2d 697 (1960). [15] See United States v Knotts, 460 US 276 ; 103 S Ct 1081 ; 75 L Ed 2d 55 (1983) (explaining the Katz test). [16] In People v Smith, 420 Mich 1 ; 360 NW2d 841 (1984), this Court adopted the Katz test for purposes of determining the interests protected by Const 1963, art 1, § 11. [17]	1	1991–1991
Jones v. United States red scotus · 1960 2 sentences 1991For example, see Warden v Hayden, 387 US 294, 304 ; 87 S Ct 1642 ; 18 L Ed 2d 782 (1967); Wong Sun v United States, 371 US 471 ; 83 S Ct 407 ; 9 L Ed 2d 441 (1963); Silverman v United States, 365 US 505 ; 81 S Ct 679 ; 5 L Ed 2d 734 (1961); Jones v United States, 362 US 257 ; 80 S Ct 725 ; 4 L Ed 2d 697 (1960). [15] See United States v Knotts, 460 US 276 ; 103 S Ct 1081 ; 75 L Ed 2d 55 (1983) (explaining the Katz test). [16] In People v Smith, 420 Mich 1 ; 360 NW2d 841 (1984), this Court adopted the Katz test for purposes of determining the interests protected by Const 1963, art 1, § 11. [17] 1991For example, see Warden v Hayden, 387 US 294, 304 ; 87 S Ct 1642 ; 18 L Ed 2d 782 (1967); Wong Sun v United States, 371 US 471 ; 83 S Ct 407 ; 9 L Ed 2d 441 (1963); Silverman v United States, 365 US 505 ; 81 S Ct 679 ; 5 L Ed 2d 734 (1961); Jones v United States, 362 US 257 ; 80 S Ct 725 ; 4 L Ed 2d 697 (1960). [15] See United States v Knotts, 460 US 276 ; 103 S Ct 1081 ; 75 L Ed 2d 55 (1983) (explaining the Katz test). [16] In People v Smith, 420 Mich 1 ; 360 NW2d 841 (1984), this Court adopted the Katz test for purposes of determining the interests protected by Const 1963, art 1, § 11. [17]	1	1991–1991
Wong Sun v. United States green scotus · 1963 2 sentences 1991For example, see Warden v Hayden, 387 US 294, 304 ; 87 S Ct 1642 ; 18 L Ed 2d 782 (1967); Wong Sun v United States, 371 US 471 ; 83 S Ct 407 ; 9 L Ed 2d 441 (1963); Silverman v United States, 365 US 505 ; 81 S Ct 679 ; 5 L Ed 2d 734 (1961); Jones v United States, 362 US 257 ; 80 S Ct 725 ; 4 L Ed 2d 697 (1960). [15] See United States v Knotts, 460 US 276 ; 103 S Ct 1081 ; 75 L Ed 2d 55 (1983) (explaining the Katz test). [16] In People v Smith, 420 Mich 1 ; 360 NW2d 841 (1984), this Court adopted the Katz test for purposes of determining the interests protected by Const 1963, art 1, § 11. [17] 1991For example, see Warden v Hayden, 387 US 294, 304 ; 87 S Ct 1642 ; 18 L Ed 2d 782 (1967); Wong Sun v United States, 371 US 471 ; 83 S Ct 407 ; 9 L Ed 2d 441 (1963); Silverman v United States, 365 US 505 ; 81 S Ct 679 ; 5 L Ed 2d 734 (1961); Jones v United States, 362 US 257 ; 80 S Ct 725 ; 4 L Ed 2d 697 (1960). [15] See United States v Knotts, 460 US 276 ; 103 S Ct 1081 ; 75 L Ed 2d 55 (1983) (explaining the Katz test). [16] In People v Smith, 420 Mich 1 ; 360 NW2d 841 (1984), this Court adopted the Katz test for purposes of determining the interests protected by Const 1963, art 1, § 11. [17]	1	1991–1991
United States v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan green scotus · 1972 2 sentences 1991See also id. at 2284-2285 (individual views of Senators Dirksen, Hruska, Scott, and Thurmond); United States v United States Dist Court for the Eastern Dist of Michigan, 407 US 297, 302 ; 92 S Ct 2125 ; 32 L Ed 2d 752 (1972). [18] Congress considered participant monitoring and recording to be an indispensable tool in criminal investigations. 1991See also id. at 2284-2285 (individual views of Senators Dirksen, Hruska, Scott, and Thurmond); United States v United States Dist Court for the Eastern Dist of Michigan, 407 US 297, 302 ; 92 S Ct 2125 ; 32 L Ed 2d 752 (1972). [18] Congress considered participant monitoring and recording to be an indispensable tool in criminal investigations.	1	1991–1991

Where else courts name it

CA 20 (1975–2020) MD 15 (2001–2025) CT 13 (2010–2025) FL 11 (1980–2015) NM 10 (1991–2015) NY 9 (1997–2022) PA 9 (1976–2025) OR 8 (1981–1988) MT 8 (1982–2021) OH 8 (1976–2025) IL 7 (1973–2025) IN 6 (1985–2017) WI 6 (1985–2024) AZ 6 (2009–2023) MI 5 (1991–2022) TN 5 (1980–2019) VA 4 (2014–2017) TX 4 (1983–2015) CO 4 (1986–2009) IA 4 (2021–2023) GA 4 (2011–2019) KY 3 (2006–2016) AK 3 (1984–2024) VT 3 (1983–1998) ME 3 (1982–1995) NH 3 (1973–1990) SD 3 (2005–2017) NC 2 (2014–2015) WA 2 (1981–2021) HI 2 (1996–2016) DE 2 (1998–2018) KS 2 (1987–2012) MN 2 (2014–2018)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check