Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Criminal Law Blogs -> Fourth Amendment

Criminal Law

: Fourth Amendment

E.D. Ark.: Hudson essentially means knock-and-announce violation is irrelevant

By John Wesley Hall, Jr.

Defendant's knock-and-announce claim would fail as a matter of law under Hudson, so the court will not even address it. United States v. Taggart, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56425 (E.D. Ark. July 8, 2008).* In plaintiff's § 1983 case against the police for an alleged excessive search of his house, taking the evidence in the best light possible, the police lawfully conduct a protective sweep. Also, bringing a dog onto the premises during the search was not unreasonable. Peals v. Terre Haute Police Dep't, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 15875 (7th Cir. July 25, 2008).* First time informant was shown to be reliable by the monitoring of his phone call with the defendant. United States v. Turrentine, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56413 (E.D. Mo. July 23, 2008).*

Full post as published by Fourth Amendment on July 29, 2008 (boomark / email).