ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Legal Research Blogs -> FSU College of Law Library Blog

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Legal Research

: FSU College of Law Library Blog

Supreme Court Limits the Exclusionary Rule

By mdell

ADVERTISEMENTS

"The U.S. Supreme Court limited the time-honored exclusionary rule yesterday when it held that evidence seized in a home search may still be used for trial even after police failed to "knock and announce" before entering."  Hudson v. Michigan was decided on June 15, 2006.

"The 5-4 decision also underlines the change in the makeup of the court now that Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. has replaced Sandra Day O?Connor. Hudson was one of two cases reargued this term after Alito joined the court, hinting at a 4-4 split among the justices in the wake of O?Connor?s departure. Alito likely tilted the decision toward the more restrictive use of the exclusionary rule elaborated in Justice Antonin Scalia?s majority opinion."

"The knock-and-announce rule, under which police are required to wait before entering a suspect?s residence, "has never protected ? one?s interest in preventing the government from seeing or taking evidence described in a [search] warrant," Scalia wrote. "Since the interests that were violated in this case have nothing to do with the seizure of the evidence, the exclusionary rule is inapplicable."

Excerpts from: http://www.abanet.org/journal/ereport/jn16hudson.html

The issue for "Wayne State University Law School professor David Moran, who will argue Hudson?s case, [is that] the 4th Amendment?s protection against ?unreasonable searches and seizures? is at stake. At issue...is whether evidence obtained after a knock and announce violation is the fruit of an ?unreasonable? entry, and therefore subject to suppression. ?The criminal prosecution of officers is never going to happen,? he said, citing Mapp v. Ohio (1961), which called other remedies ?worthless and futile.?  [H]e could find only two cases in which a knock and announce victim won a civil lawsuit against the police, and in those cases the victim was awarded only $1."

Excerpt from: http://docket.medill.northwestern.edu/archives/002753.php

People v. Hudson (Unpublished Michigan Court of Appeals opinion)

Hudson v. Michigan (U.S. Supreme Court Brief for Respondent)

Posted by Marin Dell

Full post as published by FSU College of Law Library Blog on June 20, 2006 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Law Articles

Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0134 secs (new cache)