Booker Hudson V. Michigan Case Brief
Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586 (2006)
Facts- Detroit police obtained a warrant authorizing a search for drugs and firearms at the home of Booker Hudson. When police arrived to execute the warrant, they announced their presence but waited “three to five seconds” before turning the knob of the unlocked front door and entering Hudson’s home. Police discovered large quantities of drugs, including cocaine rocks in Hudson’s pocket and a loaded gun placed in between the cushion and armrest of a chair in which he was sitting.. Hudson was charged under Michigan law with unlawful drug and firearm possession. Hudson moved to suppress the evidence.
Procedural History-
At the Trial Court, Hudson moved to suppress the evidence, which the Trial Court granted.
The Court of …show more content…
These efforts, along with the availability of civil remedies, should be sufficient to deter and punish knock-announce violations.
-The exclusionary remedy should not apply- when the officers fail to comply with knock-notice rules because “the causal link between a violation of the knock-and-announce requirement and a later search is too attenuated to allow suppression”. The evidence is discovered not because of a failure to knock and announce, but because of a subsequent search conducted pursuant to a lawful warrant.
Dissenting
Violation of 4th Amendment rights-majority opinion “destroys the strongest legal incentive to comply with the Constitution’s knock-notice requirements
-The fact that they had a warrant doesn’t mean they can go in with disregard to the procedure… the Constitution guarantees that the Gov. cannot enter your home w/o complying with
Facts- Detroit police obtained a warrant authorizing a search for drugs and firearms at the home of Booker Hudson. When police arrived to execute the warrant, they announced their presence but waited “three to five seconds” before turning the knob of the unlocked front door and entering Hudson’s home. Police discovered large quantities of drugs, including cocaine rocks in Hudson’s pocket and a loaded gun placed in between the cushion and armrest of a chair in which he was sitting.. Hudson was charged under Michigan law with unlawful drug and firearm possession. Hudson moved to suppress the evidence.
Procedural History-
At the Trial Court, Hudson moved to suppress the evidence, which the Trial Court granted.
The Court of …show more content…
These efforts, along with the availability of civil remedies, should be sufficient to deter and punish knock-announce violations.
-The exclusionary remedy should not apply- when the officers fail to comply with knock-notice rules because “the causal link between a violation of the knock-and-announce requirement and a later search is too attenuated to allow suppression”. The evidence is discovered not because of a failure to knock and announce, but because of a subsequent search conducted pursuant to a lawful warrant.
Dissenting
Violation of 4th Amendment rights-majority opinion “destroys the strongest legal incentive to comply with the Constitution’s knock-notice requirements
-The fact that they had a warrant doesn’t mean they can go in with disregard to the procedure… the Constitution guarantees that the Gov. cannot enter your home w/o complying with