Preview of Member Only Content
For full access: or Become a Member
Potential Post-Hudson Pitfalls
By Richard L. Holcomb
Throughout history, the very formation of law, at least law relying on
the principle of stare decisis, depends upon precedent for one specific
issue being used as a springboard for finding similar results in other
areas of the law. This truism has recently troubled criminal defense
lawyers in light of the recent majority opinion in Hudson v. Michigan.
In Hudson, the Supreme Court held that suppression of the evidence is
not required when officers violate the “knock-and-announce” rule.1
This article addresses whether suppression of evidence will continue to
be required in order to deter illegal conduct of law enforcement
officers during the execution of a search warrant, as opposed to the
procurement or facial deficiency of the search warrant.
The Hudson Case
Police obtained a warrant authorizing a search for drugs and firearms at
Booker Hudson’s residence. The validity of the search warrant was not
before the Court. The only issue addressed by the Court was
Want to read more?
The Champion archive is reserved for NACDL members.
NACDL members, please login to read the rest of this article.
Not a member? Join now.
Or click here to see an overview of NACDL Member benefits.
See what NACDL members say about us.
To read the current issue of The Champion in its entirety, click here.
- Media inquiries: Contact NACDL's Director of Public Affairs & Communications Ivan J. Dominguez at 202-465-7662 or email@example.com
- Academic Requests: Full articles of The Champion Magazine are available for academic and research purposes in the WestLaw and LexisNexis databases.