Sunday, November 3, 2013

Hudson v. Michigan case brief

Hudson v. Michigan case brief summary
547 U.S. 586 (2006)

Defendant was charged under state law with unlawful drug and firearm possession. The state trial court granted defendant's motion to suppress. The Michigan Court of Appeals reversed, finding that violation of the "knock and announce" rule did not require suppression under theFourth Amendment. Defendant was convicted of drug possession. Certiorari was granted.

When police arrived to execute a search warrant for drugs and firearms at defendant's home, they announced their presence but waited only a short time before turning the knob of the unlocked front door and entering the home. Police discovered large quantities of drugs and a loaded gun. The State conceded that the entry was a violation of the "knock and announce" rule.

  • The Court determined that the exclusionary rule was inapplicable and suppression of the evidence was not warranted because, inter alia, 
  • (1) violation of the "knock-and-announce" rule did not require the suppression of all evidence found in the search; 
  • (2) the constitutional violation of an illegal manner of entry was not a but-for cause of obtaining the evidence;
  • (3) the interests that were violated, preventing the Government from seeing or taking evidence described in a warrant, had nothing to do with the seizure of the evidence; and 
  • (4) the social costs of applying the exclusionary rule to knock-and-announce violations were considerable, the incentive for such violations was minimal to begin with, and the extant deterrences against them were substantial.


The Court affirmed the judgment of the state appellate court.

Recommended Supplements for Criminal Procedure Criminal Procedure: Examples & Explanations, Sixth Edition
Emanuel Law Outline: Criminal Procedure

No comments:

Post a Comment

The Evolution of Legal Marketing: From Billboards to Digital Leads Over the last couple of decades, the face of legal marketing has changed a l...