“Knock and Announce” Violations—No Bar to Evidence

The United States Supreme Court has just announced a decision in a case that was argued twice this term, and that we previewed last January. The case is Hudson v. Michigan (04-1360).^[1] In a 5‑4 decision, Justice Antonin Scalia writing for the majority, the Court held that violations of the “knock and announce” rule in home searches by police does not necessary bar the resulting evidence from being admitted at trial.^[2]

The “knock and announce” rule, announced by the Court in 1995, requires police to wait a reasonable amount of time before entering a home to execute a search warrant.^[3] The remedy for a violation is to exclude the evidence resulting from the search at trial.

The impact of this ruling is great for police, but represents another blow to the reasonable privacy rights of individuals. When the full decision is released later today, it will be clearer whether the Supreme Court created a limited exception under which the ruling applies, or if it held that evidence obtained under these circumstances is admissible in all instances of violation. The ruling today affirms the decision of the Michigan Supreme Court and is in agreement with previous rulings in the 7th Circuit.^[4] The other federal circuits considering the question, the 6th and the 8th Circuits, disagreed.

In the facts of this case, police arrived at Mr. Hudson’s home to execute a warrant to search his home for narcotics. The state courts agreed that the officers failed to wait a reasonable amount of time after knocking and announcing themselves before entering the home. However, at trial Mr. Hudson was convicted of illegal possession of drugs and firearms based largely on the gun and cocaine evidence found on his coffee table during the search. In light of the ruling today, Mr. Hudson’s conviction will stand.

The Supreme Court is expected to announce its next decisions on Monday.

---

[1] Hudson v. Michigan, No. 04-1360, June 15, 2006 (decision not available online at the time of this posting).
[2] Id.
[3] Wilson v. Arkansas, 514 U.S. 927 (1995).
[4] Michigan v. Hudson, No. 98-010141 (unpublished June 17, 2006).