University News
Constitution Day: Must Evidence From an Illegal Search be Excluded From Trial?
September 21, 2006
Constitution Day: Must Evidence From an Illegal Search be Excluded From Trial?
By Virginia R. Boynton, History
Hudson v. Michigan (2006)
In this narrowly decided case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Fourth Amendments protection against unreasonable searches and seizures does not require the exclusion of evidence obtained by the police in violation of the longstanding knock-and-announce rule, which requires that police wait twenty to thirty seconds after knocking and announcing their presence before entering a building.
The defendant, Booker T. Hudson, was convicted of drug and firearms possession in Michigan after Detroit police found cocaine and a gun in his home. Although the police had a legal search warrant and knocked and announced themselves, they subsequently waited for fewer than five seconds before entering Hudsons home. The trial judge ruled that the evidence found in Hudsons home, therefore, could not be used in the trial. The Michigan Court of Appeals reversed the lower court decision, based on two earlier Michigan Supreme Court decisions.
In this 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the evidence collected when the police violated the knock-and-announce rule did not have to be excluded from trial. While Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, did not repeal the knock-and-announce rule itself, he wrote that means other than exclusion of evidence, such as civil rights suits or internal police disciplinary measures, were sufficient to deter violations of the rule. Because the police had a valid search warrant in this case, the results of that search should not, Scalia wrote, be excluded because the police failed to wait the full 20 seconds before entering. Scalia was joined in his majority opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts, Jr., and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito, Jr.
Justice Stephen Breyers dissenting opinion, in which Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined, noted that the Court had a long history of upholding the exclusion of evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment. (The exclusionary rule, which excludes from use in a trial any evidence obtained illegally by the police, was first established by the Supreme Court in 1914.) The dissenting Justices also expressed doubt that knock-and-announce violations could be deterred unless the evidence obtained from those searches was excluded from trial.
The decision highlighted the impact of former Justice Sandra Day OConnors retirement from the Supreme Court. When the Court first heard arguments in the case, Justice OConnor still sat on the Court and appeared sympathetic to the defendant. The case was reheard after Justice Samuel Alito replaced OConnor, and Justice Alito joined in Justice Scalias majority opinion against Hudson.
For further information: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05slipopinion.html
Sept. 18, 2006 - Constitution Day Release
Sept. 18, 2006 - The Trial of the Century: Hamdan v. Rumsfield and the Overturning of the Bush Doctrine
By Peter Cole, History
Sept. 19, 2006 - Wetlands Protection and The Clean Water Act: Rapanos v. United States
By Greg Hall, History
Sept. 20, 2006 - In Imposing the Death Penalty, Does the "Tie" Go to the Defendant?
By Keith Boeckelman, Political Science
Posted By: University Communications (U-Communications@wiu.edu)
Office of University Communications & Marketing
Connect with us: