Hudson v. Michigan

454 Words2 Pages
Hudson v. Michigan Background facts: Police obtained a warrant authorizing a search for drugs and firearms at the home of petitioner Booker Hudson. They discovered both. Large quantities of drugs were found, including cocaine rocks in Hudson’s pocket. A loaned gun was lodged between the cushion and armrest of the chair in which he was sitting. Hudson was charged under Michigan law with unlawful drug and firearm possession. When police arrived to execute the warrant, they announced their presence, but waited only a short time perhaps “three to five seconds” before turning the knob of the unlocked front door and entering Hudson’s home. At trial Hudson argued that police violated the knock and announce requirement, therefore all the evidence stemming from the search warrant should be inadmissible. The Trial Judge granted the motion to suppress the evidence. On appeal, Michigan Court of Appeals reversed the motion to suppress. Soon after, Hudson was convicted of drug possession. Hudson then filed an appeal which brought the case to the Supreme Court. Provision of the constitution involved in this case: This case involves the exclusionary rule which comes directly from the Fifth Amendment. It states that no object may be used in court as evidence if obtained illegally or without a proper search warrant. Legal questions to be addressed by the court: Whether the exclusionary rule is appropriate for violation of the knock-and-announce requirement? The decision of the court: With a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court found that the exclusionary rule is not appropriate for violations of the knock and announce rule. The Court noted that a knock-notice violation is rarely the “but-for” cause of obtaining inculpatory evidence. Consequently, when the police violate knock-notice rules by not announcing their presence or waiting sufficient time before forcing their way in),

More about Hudson v. Michigan

Open Document