SUPREME COURT WILL DECIDE IF EVIDENCE SHOULD BE EXCLUDED
IF POLICE FAIL TO “KNOCK AND ANNOUNCE”
Oral argument in Hudson v. Michigan scheduled for Monday, January
9
The United States Supreme Court will hear oral argument today in a
case involving a Detroit man’s claim that his drug dealing conviction
is invalid because police did not properly knock and announce before
searching his home. At issue in Hudson v. Michigan is whether
a failure to knock and announce requires the exclusion of criminal evidence
uncovered from a warranted search.
“This is an important case for law enforcement because a decision
favoring the defendant could create new impediments to the introduction
of criminal evidence,” said Charles Hobson, an Attorney with the
Criminal Justice Legal Foundation. The Foundation has filed an amicus
curiae (friend of the court) brief in the case opposing the defendant’s
claim.
In 1995, the Supreme Court’s decision in Wilson v. Arkansas
held that the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment requires police officers
executing a search warrant to knock and announce their presence before
entering a dwelling absent exigent circumstances. The decision recognized
that in some circumstances a search would still be reasonable and legal
without a knock and announce by police.
On the afternoon of August 27, 1998, Detroit police with a search warrant,
announced their presence without knocking at the front door of Booker
T. Hudson’s home. After about four seconds, the officers entered
and found Hudson sitting in a chair. In a pat-down search, police found
five rocks of cocaine in Hudson’s pants pocket. A search of the
residence produced an illegal firearm.
Prior to trial, Hudson won a ruling to exclude the drugs and other
evidence based on the violation of the knock and announce rule. The
Michigan Court of Appeals reversed that ruling, citing state Supreme
Court precedent which held that a failure to knock and announce did
not require the exclusion of evidence. Hudson was subsequently convicted
on a drug dealing charge and sentenced to 18 months probation. After
the Michigan Supreme Court refused to hear his knock and announce claim
on appeal, Hudson sought review in the United States Supreme Court.
In addition to his defense attorney, the National Association of Criminal
Defense Attorneys and the Cato Institute have filed arguments in the
case encouraging a precedent-setting decision to require that criminal
evidence be excluded when police fail to knock and announce.
The knock and announce rule regulates how to conduct a search rather
than whether a search can take place. In every knock and announce case,
the police have legal authority to make the search. The exclusionary
rule, already a windfall for criminals, should not apply when the police
conduct a valid search, but simply fail to knock and announce.
In its brief in the case the Foundation is asking the Court not to
extend the exclusionary rule to cases involving a failure to knock and
announce. The brief argues that the damage to public safety which currently
results from excluding otherwise valid criminal evidence because of
an error on the warrant or a mistake by police would be increased if
a failure to knock and announce were also held to invalidate a search.
“Every time the courts make it more difficult for police to investigate
crimes and prosecutors to present evidence, criminals benefit at the
expense of public safety,” said Hobson.
CJLF Attorney Charles Hobson is available for comment
at (916) 446-0345.
The Foundation helped win seven United States Supreme Court decisions
benefitting law enforcement and public safety during the Court’s
2004/2005 term.
The Foundation’s brief in this case is available at:
http://www.cjlf.org/briefs/Hudson.pdf
|
