PRESS RELEASE

The United States Supreme Court has rejected a Detroit man’s claim that his drug dealing conviction is invalid because police did not properly knock and announce before searching his home.

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.  The decision also recognized that in some circumstances a search would still be reasonable and legal without a knock and announce by police.  The issue before the Court in Hudson v. Michigan was whether a failure to knock and announce requires the exclusion of criminal evidence uncovered from a warranted search.  The California-based Criminal Justice Legal Foundation filed an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief in the case, encouraging today’s 5 to 4 decision. 

“Today’s decision not to expand the exclusionary rule is very important to law enforcement,” said Foundation Legal Director Kent Scheidegger.  “Justice is best served when juries are allowed to consider all relevant evidence,” he added.

In the majority opinion, Associate Justice Antonin Scalia wrote, “What the knock-and-announce rule has never protected, however, is one’s interest in preventing the government from seeing or taking evidence described in a warrant.  Since the interests that were violated in this case have nothing to do with the seizure of the evidence, the exclusionary rule is inapplicable.”

The case involves a police search on the afternoon of August 27, 1998.  Detroit police officers 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 of possession with intent to deliver 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 Lawyers and the Cato Institute filed arguments on Hudson’s behalf to encourage a precedent-setting decision requiring that criminal evidence be excluded when police fail to knock and announce.

In its brief, the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation urged the Court not to extend the exclusionary rule to cases involving a failure to knock and announce.  The brief argued 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.

“The knock and announce rule regulates how to conduct a search rather than whether a search can take place,” said Scheidegger.  “In cases such as this, the police have legal authority to make the search.  The Court’s decision today confirms that the exclusionary rule, which is already a windfall for criminals, should not apply when the police conduct a valid search, but simply fail to knock and announce,” he added.