Hudson v. Michigan

Police entered petitioner’s home and executed search warrant in acknowledged violation of the “knock and announce” rule. Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, decided that the “social costs” of the exclusionary rule – such as the possible release of “dangerous criminals” – are too high to justify suppression as a remedy for failure to knock and announce. The majority offered in dicta, and with a straight face, that the possibility that aggrieved persons could file a civil rights suit against the police should be a sufficient deterrent against this type of misconduct.


Hudson v. Michigan

United States Supreme Court; Case No. 126 S.Ct. 2159 (2006)



Featured Products


Prof. Tracey Maclin.