The Hudson v. Michigan Case’s Ruling with Reasoning
On 27 August 1998, the Detroit police arrived at Booker T. Hudson’s house to execute a warrant authorizing a search of Hudson’s home for drugs and firearms. However, although the police shouted “police, search warrant,” they waited only “three to five seconds” before barging inside Hudson’s home through the unlocked front door. Upon entering, the police saw Hudson sitting on numerous crack cocaine paraphernalia while other people were running out of the house. Hudson was put on trial for drug possession and felony, but he argued that the police went into the premature entry that violated the knock-and-announce requirement. At the evidentiary hearing on the suppression motion, the prosecutor conceded that the police had violated the knock-and-announce requirement, and the trial judge granted the petitioner’s motion to suppress.
However, the Michigan Court of Appeals reversed, relying on Michigan Supreme Court cases holding that suppression is inappropriate when entry is made pursuant to a warrant but without proper “knock-and-announce.” The Michigan Supreme Court denied review, but the U. S. Supreme Court granted certiorari. Interestingly, Michigan conceded that the entry violated the “rule of announcement.” Writing for the 5-4 majority, Justice Antonin Scalia issued the decision on 15 June 2006 that argued evidence seized in violation of the knock-and-announce rule could be used against a defendant in a later criminal trial. With this, an exception to the exclusionary rule in the law of criminal procedure does not automatically equate with a major shift in constitutional law.