Hudson v. Michigan
Supreme Court of the United States
January 9, 2006, Argued ; June 15, 2006, Decided
[*588] [**2162] Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court, except as to Part IV.
LEdHN[1A] [1A] LEdHN[2A] [2A] We decide whether violation of the "knock-and-announce" rule requires the suppression of all evidence found in the search.
Police obtained a warrant authorizing a search for drugs and firearms at the home of petitioner Booker Hudson. They discovered both. Large quantities of drugs were found, including cocaine rocks in Hudson's pocket. A loaded gun was lodged between the cushion and armrest of the chair in which he was sitting. Hudson was charged under Michigan law with unlawful drug and firearm possession.
This case is before us only because of the method of entry into the house. When the police arrived to execute the warrant, they announced their presence, but waited only a short time--perhaps "three to five seconds," App. 15--before turning the knob of the unlocked front door and entering Hudson's home. Hudson moved to suppress all the inculpatory [****6] evidence, arguing that the premature entry violated his Fourth Amendment rights.
The Michigan trial court granted his motion. On interlocutory review, the Michigan Court of Appeals reversed, relying [*589] on Michigan Supreme Court cases holding that suppression is inappropriate when entry is made pursuant to warrant but without proper "'knock and announce.'" App. to Pet. for Cert. 4 (citing [***63] People v. Vasquez, 461 Mich. 235, 602 N.W.2d 376 (1999) (per curiam); People v. Stevens, 460 Mich. 626, 597 N.W.2d 53 (1999)). The Michigan Supreme Court denied leave to appeal. 465 Mich. 932, 639 N.W. 2d 255 (2001). Hudson was convicted of drug possession. He renewed his Fourth Amendment claim on appeal, but the Court of Appeals rejected it and affirmed the conviction. App. to Pet. for Cert. 1-2. The Michigan Supreme Court again declined review. 472 Mich. 862, 692 N.W.2d 385 (2005). We granted certiorari. 545 U.S. 1138, 125 S. Ct. 2964, 162 L. Ed. 2d 886 (2005).
HN1 LEdHN[3A] [3A] LEdHN[4A] [4A] The common-law principle that law enforcement officers must announce their presence and provide residents an opportunity to open the door is an ancient one. See Wilson v. Arkansas, 514 U.S. 927, 931-932, 115 S. Ct. 1914, 131 L. Ed. 2d 976 (1995). [****7] Since 1917, when Congress passed the Espionage Act, this traditional protection has been part of federal statutory law, see 40 Stat. 229, and is currently codified at 18 U.S.C. § 3109. We applied that statute in Miller v. United States, 357 U.S. 301, 78 S. Ct. 1190, 2 L. Ed. 2d 1332 (1958), and again in Sabbath v. United States, 391 U.S. 585, 88 S. Ct. 1755, 20 L. Ed. 2d 828 (1968). Finally, in Wilson, we were asked whether the rule was also a command of the Fourth Amendment. Tracing its origins in our English legal heritage, 514 U.S., at 931-936, 115 S. Ct. 1914, 131 L. Ed. 2d 976, we concluded that it was. Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
547 U.S. 586 *; 126 S. Ct. 2159 **; 165 L. Ed. 2d 56 ***; 2006 U.S. LEXIS 4677 ****; 74 U.S.L.W. 4311; 23 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 823; 19 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 244
BOOKER T. HUDSON, JR., Petitioner v. MICHIGAN
Prior History: [****1] ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MICHIGAN.
PEOPLE v. HUDSON, 2004 Mich. App. LEXIS 1681 (Mich. Ct. App., June 17, 2004)
knock-and-announce, suppression, exclusionary rule, cases, deterrence, violations, announce, arrest, knock, warrantless search, door, suppression of evidence, invalid, wait, privacy, police officer, gun, discovery of evidence, search warrant, per curiam, seizure, seized, deter, constitutional violation, discovery, no-knock, illegal entry, destruction, effective, inside
Constitutional Law, Fundamental Rights, Search & Seizure, Scope of Protection, Criminal Law & Procedure, Search Warrants, Execution of Warrants, Exclusionary Rule, Exclusionary Rule, Rule Application & Interpretation, Fruit of the Poisonous Tree, Attenuation, Civil Rights Law, Procedural Matters, Costs & Attorney Fees, Statutory Attorney Fee Awards, General Overview