Preview of Member Only Content
For full access: or Become a Member
Knock and Announce Violations After Hudson v. Michigan
By Gerald F. Uelman
The 5-4 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Hudson v. Michigan, No. 04-1360, announced on June 15, 2006, will provide prosecutors a new argument in response to every suppression motion made by the defense. Even assuming a clear violation of Fourth Amendment privacy protection, courts will be asked to determine whether “the interest protected by the constitutional guarantee that has been violated would not be served by suppression of the evidence obtained.” Thus, the case may have far reaching implications beyond the knock and announce requirement which it considered.
The Hudson majority, led by Justice Scalia, concludes that the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule does not apply when the Fourth Amendment violation is a failure to comply with the requirement that officers armed with a search warrant must knock and announce their authority and purpose before forcing entry. The most striking aspect of this ruling is its breadth. Michigan courts applied a somewhat narrower “inevitable dis
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.