The Champion

May 2007 , Page 28 

Search the Champion Looking for something specific?

Preview of Member Only Content

For full access: login or Become a Member Join Now

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.
login

Not a member? Join now.
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 idominguez@nacdl.org
  • Academic Requests: Full articles of The Champion Magazine are available for academic and research purposes in the WestLaw and LexisNexis databases.

In This Section

Advertisement Advertise with Us
ad