Hudson v. Michigan
| Hudson v. Michigan | |
|---|---|
|
|
| Argued January 9, 2006 Reargued May 18, 2006 Decided June 15, 2006 |
|
| Full case name | Booker T. Hudson, Jr. v. Michigan |
| Docket nos. | 04-1360 |
| Citations | 547 U.S. 586 (more)
126 S. Ct. 2159, 165 L. Ed. 2d 56
|
| Prior history | Motion to suppress granted, Wayne County Circuit Court; reversed, Mich. App. May 1, 2001; leave to appeal denied, 639 N.W.2d 255 (Mich. 2001); defendant convicted, Wayne County Circuit Court; affirmed, Mich. App. June 17, 2004; leave to appeal denied, 692 N.W.2d 385 (Mich. 2005); cert. granted, 126 S. Ct. 618 (2005); restored to calendar for reargument, 126 S. Ct. 1836 (2006) |
| Holding | |
| A violation of the "knock-and-announce" rule by police does not require the suppression of the evidence found during a search. | |
| Court membership | |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Scalia (Parts I, II, III), joined by Roberts, Thomas, Alito; Kennedy (in part) |
| Concurrence | Kennedy |
| Dissent | Breyer, joined by Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. IV | |
Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586 (2006), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a violation of the Fourth Amendment requirement that police officers knock, announce their presence, and wait a reasonable amount of time before entering a private residence (the knock-and-announce requirement) does not require suppression of the evidence obtained in the ensuing search.
On the afternoon of August 27, 1998, Officer Jamal Good and six other Detroit police officers arrived at the residence of Booker T. Hudson to execute a warrant authorizing a search of Hudson's home for drugs and firearms. Several officers shouted "police, search warrant," but then as was Officer Good's policy in drug cases, waited only "three to five seconds" before entering Hudson's home through the unlocked front door.
Immediately upon entering, the officers found Hudson sitting on a chair in the living room while numerous other individuals were running about the house. In the ensuing search, the police found five rocks of crack cocaine weighing less than 25 grams inside Hudson's pants pockets. In addition, a plastic bag containing 23 individual baggies of crack and a loaded revolver were found on the chair upon which Hudson was sitting and a plastic bag containing 24 individual baggies of cocaine was found on the living room coffee table.
At Hudson's trial for cocaine possession with intent to deliver and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, Hudson argued that—since the premature entry violated the knock-and-announce requirement and, therefore, according to the Supreme Court's decision in Wilson v. Arkansas his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures—the exclusionary rule required that the evidence obtained in the ensuing search must be suppressed. 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 petitioner's motion to suppress.
...
Wikipedia