The Champion

September/October 2006 , Page 62 

Search the Champion Looking for something specific?

Preview of Member Only Content

For full access: login or Become a Member Join Now

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.
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