Hudson v. Michigan
Encyclopedia
Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U. S. 586 (2006)
, is a decision of the United States Supreme Court
holding that a violation of the Fourth Amendment requirement that police officers knock, announce their presence, and wait a reasonable amount of time before entering a private residence (the knock-and-announce
requirement) does not require suppression of the evidence obtained in the ensuing search.
police officers arrived at the residence of Booker T. Hudson to execute a warrant
authorizing a search of Hudson's home for drugs and firearms. Several officers shouted "police, search warrant," but then as was Officer Good's policy in drug cases, waited only "three to five seconds" before entering Hudson's home through the unlocked front door.
Immediately upon entering, the officers found Hudson sitting on a chair in the living room while numerous other individuals were running about the house. In the ensuing search, the police found five rocks of crack cocaine weighing less than 25 gram
s inside Hudson's pants pockets. In addition, a plastic bag containing 23 individual baggies of crack and a loaded revolver were found on the chair upon which Hudson was sitting and a plastic bag containing 24 individual baggies of cocaine was found on the living room coffee table.
his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures—the exclusionary rule
required that the evidence obtained in the ensuing search must be suppressed. At the evidentiary hearing on the suppression motion, the prosecutor conceded that the police had violated the knock-and-announce requirement, and the trial judge granted petitioner's motion to suppress.
In an interlocutory appeal
by the prosecution, the Michigan Court of Appeals
reversed, relying on Michigan Supreme Court
cases holding that suppression is inappropriate when entry is made pursuant to warrant but without proper "knock-and-announce." The Michigan Supreme Court declined to hear Hudson's appeal.
Following a bench trial
, Hudson was convicted of possession of less than twenty-five grams of cocaine and sentenced to probation
for eighteen months.
Hudson appealed to the Court of Appeals on the sole ground that the evidence seized during the execution of a search warrant should have been suppressed because the police violated the knock and announce statute. The court rejected his argument and affirmed his conviction. The Michigan Supreme Court again declined to review Hudson's case.
On June 27, 2005, the Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari
to hear the case. The Court heard oral argument
s on January 9, 2006; and ordered an oral re-argument after the replacement of Justice O'Connor by Justice Alito and apparent difficulty in deciding the case by the remaining eight members who originally heard the case. In both arguments, Timothy Baughman argued for the state and David Moran argued for Hudson. The question presented to the Court was whether violation of the knock and announce rule requires a court to suppress all evidence found in the search. The Court issued its opinion on June 15, 2006.
, writing for the majority (5–4) with respect to Parts I, II and III of his opinion, held that evidence seized in violation of the knock-and-announce rule could be used against a defendant in a later criminal trial in comport with the Fourth Amendment and that judges cannot suppress such evidence for a knock and announce violation alone. Justice Scalia was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts
, Justice Samuel Alito
, Justice Clarence Thomas
, and Justice Kennedy
, who concurred in part and with the judgment.
Unlike previous cases addressing the knock-and-announce requirement, the Court did not need to address the question of whether the knock-and-announce rule was violated, as the State of Michigan conceded the violation at trial. The question before the Court was regarding the remedy that should be afforded Hudson for the violation.
The majority notes that the Court first adopted an exclusionary rule
for evidence seized without a warrant in Weeks v. United States
, 232 U.S. 383 (1914), which was applied to the states in Mapp v. Ohio
, 367 U.S. 643 (1961), but points out that the exclusionary rule was limited by later decisions. After discussing these decisions, Scalia writes:
Scalia distinguishes evidence seized in warrantless searches from evidence seized in searches that violated the knock-and-announce rule, noting that:
The interests protected by the knock-and-announce rule, according to Scalia, are to protect police officers from surprised residents retaliating in presumed self-defense, to protect private property from damage, and to protect the "privacy and dignity" of residents. Scalia says that the knock-and-announce rule "has never protected . . . one’s interest in preventing the government from seeing or taking evidence described in a warrant."
The majority opinion goes on to note that the costs of exclusion for knock and announce violations outweigh the benefits of admitting the evidence. Scalia states that the costs are small, but that "suppression of all evidence[] amount[s] in many cases is a get-out-of-jail-free card." The Court states that exclusion of evidence has little or no deterrence effect, especially considering that deterrents (a civil action against the police department and internal discipline for officers) already exist. Scalia ends the portion of his opinion which constitutes the majority opinion with praise for the "increasing professionalism" of the police force over the last half-century, which he says makes some concerns expressed in past cases by the Court obsolete.
, joined by Justice Ginsburg, Justice Stevens
, and Justice Souter
, dissented. Breyer begins his dissent with a rebuke of the majority opinion,
Breyer goes on to examine the underlying case law, tracing the knock-and-announce rule to the thirteenth century, the writing of the Fourth Amendment, and the establishment of the exclusionary rule.
Breyer says that the strongest argument for application of the exclusionary rule to knock-and-announce violations is that it serves as a strong deterrent to unlawful government behavior. At the very least, according to Breyer, eliminating the exclusionary rule from consideration for knock-and-announce violations will cause some government agents to find it less risky to violate the rule. Pointing out that civil remedies are not an adequate deterrent, Breyer says,
Breyer notes that, in precedent, the Court has declined to apply the exclusionary rule only: "(1)where there is a specific reason to believe that application of the rule would 'not result in appreciable deterrence,' or (2)where admissibility in proceedings other than criminal trials was at issue" (citations omitted). The dissent states that neither of these exclusions apply to knock-and-announce violations.
Breyer wraps up his dissent with a summary of his disagreement with the majority:
was accused of twisting the arguments in Taming the System: The Control of Discretion in American Criminal Justice by its author, Samuel Walker. Scalia, in support of weakening the exclusionary rule, presents from Taming the System that there has been tremendous progress "in the education, training and supervision of police officers" since Mapp v. Ohio
in 1961. However, Walker's main argument was that the Warren Court
, including setting the exclusionary rule
under Mapp and the Miranda warning
, set new standards for lawful conduct, and enabled curbs on abuse
Case citation
Case citation is the system used in many countries to identify the decisions in past court cases, either in special series of books called reporters or law reports, or in a 'neutral' form which will identify a decision wherever it was reported...
, is a decision of the United States Supreme Court
Supreme Court of the United States
The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the United States. It has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all state and federal courts, and original jurisdiction over a small range of cases...
holding that a violation of the Fourth Amendment requirement that police officers knock, announce their presence, and wait a reasonable amount of time before entering a private residence (the knock-and-announce
Knock-and-announce
Knock-and-announce, in United States law of criminal procedure, is an ancient common-law principle, incorporated into the Fourth Amendment, which often requires law enforcement officers to announce their presence and provide residents with an opportunity to open the door prior to a valid...
requirement) does not require suppression of the evidence obtained in the ensuing search.
Background
On the afternoon of August 27, 1998, Officer Jamal Good and six other DetroitDetroit, Michigan
Detroit is the major city among the primary cultural, financial, and transportation centers in the Metro Detroit area, a region of 5.2 million people. As the seat of Wayne County, the city of Detroit is the largest city in the U.S. state of Michigan and serves as a major port on the Detroit River...
police officers arrived at the residence of Booker T. Hudson to execute a warrant
Search warrant
A search warrant is a court order issued by a Magistrate, judge or Supreme Court Official that authorizes law enforcement officers to conduct a search of a person or location for evidence of a crime and to confiscate evidence if it is found....
authorizing a search of Hudson's home for drugs and firearms. Several officers shouted "police, search warrant," but then as was Officer Good's policy in drug cases, waited only "three to five seconds" before entering Hudson's home through the unlocked front door.
Immediately upon entering, the officers found Hudson sitting on a chair in the living room while numerous other individuals were running about the house. In the ensuing search, the police found five rocks of crack cocaine weighing less than 25 gram
Gram
The gram is a metric system unit of mass....
s inside Hudson's pants pockets. In addition, a plastic bag containing 23 individual baggies of crack and a loaded revolver were found on the chair upon which Hudson was sitting and a plastic bag containing 24 individual baggies of cocaine was found on the living room coffee table.
Trial and appeals
At Hudson's trial for cocaine possession with intent to deliver and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, Hudson argued that—since the premature entry violated the knock-and-announce requirement and, therefore, according to the Supreme Court's decision in Wilson v. ArkansasWilson v. Arkansas
Wilson v. Arkansas, , is a United States Supreme Court decision in which the Court held that police officers must "knock and announce" before entering a house.-See also:* List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 514...
his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures—the exclusionary rule
Exclusionary rule
The exclusionary rule is a legal principle in the United States, under constitutional law, which holds that evidence collected or analyzed in violation of the defendant's constitutional rights is sometimes inadmissible for a criminal prosecution in a court of law...
required that the evidence obtained in the ensuing search must be suppressed. At the evidentiary hearing on the suppression motion, the prosecutor conceded that the police had violated the knock-and-announce requirement, and the trial judge granted petitioner's motion to suppress.
In an interlocutory appeal
Interlocutory appeal
An interlocutory appeal , in the law of civil procedure, is an appeal of a ruling by a trial court that is made before the trial itself has concluded. Most jurisdictions generally prohibit such appeals, requiring parties to wait until the trial has concluded before they challenge any of the...
by the prosecution, the Michigan Court of Appeals
Michigan Court of Appeals
The Michigan Court of Appeals is the intermediate-level appellate court of the state of Michigan. It was created by the Michigan Constitution of 1963, and commenced operations in 1965...
reversed, relying on Michigan Supreme Court
Michigan Supreme Court
The Michigan Supreme Court is the highest court in the U.S. state of Michigan. It is known as Michigan's "court of last resort" and consists of seven justices who are elected to eight-year terms. Candidates are nominated by political parties and are elected on a nonpartisan ballot...
cases holding that suppression is inappropriate when entry is made pursuant to warrant but without proper "knock-and-announce." The Michigan Supreme Court declined to hear Hudson's appeal.
Following a bench trial
Bench trial
A bench trial is a trial held before a judge sitting without a jury. The term is chiefly used in common law jurisdictions to describe exceptions from jury trial, as most other legal systems do not use juries to any great extent....
, Hudson was convicted of possession of less than twenty-five grams of cocaine and sentenced to probation
Probation
Probation literally means testing of behaviour or abilities. In a legal sense, an offender on probation is ordered to follow certain conditions set forth by the court, often under the supervision of a probation officer...
for eighteen months.
Hudson appealed to the Court of Appeals on the sole ground that the evidence seized during the execution of a search warrant should have been suppressed because the police violated the knock and announce statute. The court rejected his argument and affirmed his conviction. The Michigan Supreme Court again declined to review Hudson's case.
On June 27, 2005, the Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari
Certiorari
Certiorari is a type of writ seeking judicial review, recognized in U.S., Roman, English, Philippine, and other law. Certiorari is the present passive infinitive of the Latin certiorare...
to hear the case. The Court heard oral argument
Oral argument
Oral arguments are spoken presentations to a judge or appellate court by a lawyer of the legal reasons why they should prevail. Oral argument at the appellate level accompanies written briefs, which also advance the argument of each party in the legal dispute...
s on January 9, 2006; and ordered an oral re-argument after the replacement of Justice O'Connor by Justice Alito and apparent difficulty in deciding the case by the remaining eight members who originally heard the case. In both arguments, Timothy Baughman argued for the state and David Moran argued for Hudson. The question presented to the Court was whether violation of the knock and announce rule requires a court to suppress all evidence found in the search. The Court issued its opinion on June 15, 2006.
Majority
Justice Antonin ScaliaAntonin Scalia
Antonin Gregory Scalia is an American jurist who serves as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. As the longest-serving justice on the Court, Scalia is the Senior Associate Justice...
, writing for the majority (5–4) with respect to Parts I, II and III of his opinion, held that evidence seized in violation of the knock-and-announce rule could be used against a defendant in a later criminal trial in comport with the Fourth Amendment and that judges cannot suppress such evidence for a knock and announce violation alone. Justice Scalia was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts
John Roberts
John Glover Roberts, Jr. is the 17th and current Chief Justice of the United States. He has served since 2005, having been nominated by President George W. Bush after the death of Chief Justice William Rehnquist...
, Justice Samuel Alito
Samuel Alito
Samuel Anthony Alito, Jr. is an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. He was nominated by President George W. Bush and has served on the court since January 31, 2006....
, Justice Clarence Thomas
Clarence Thomas
Clarence Thomas is an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Succeeding Thurgood Marshall, Thomas is the second African American to serve on the Court....
, and Justice Kennedy
Anthony Kennedy
Anthony McLeod Kennedy is an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, having been appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1988. Since the retirement of Sandra Day O'Connor, Kennedy has often been the swing vote on many of the Court's politically charged 5–4 decisions...
, who concurred in part and with the judgment.
Unlike previous cases addressing the knock-and-announce requirement, the Court did not need to address the question of whether the knock-and-announce rule was violated, as the State of Michigan conceded the violation at trial. The question before the Court was regarding the remedy that should be afforded Hudson for the violation.
The majority notes that the Court first adopted an exclusionary rule
Exclusionary rule
The exclusionary rule is a legal principle in the United States, under constitutional law, which holds that evidence collected or analyzed in violation of the defendant's constitutional rights is sometimes inadmissible for a criminal prosecution in a court of law...
for evidence seized without a warrant in Weeks v. United States
Weeks v. United States
In Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 , the United States Supreme Court unanimously held that the warrantless seizure of items from a private residence constitutes a violation of the Fourth Amendment...
, 232 U.S. 383 (1914), which was applied to the states in Mapp v. Ohio
Mapp v. Ohio
Mapp v. Ohio, , was a landmark case in criminal procedure, in which the United States Supreme Court decided that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, which protects against "unreasonable searches and seizures," may not be used in criminal prosecutions in state courts, as well as...
, 367 U.S. 643 (1961), but points out that the exclusionary rule was limited by later decisions. After discussing these decisions, Scalia writes:
[E]xclusion may not be premised on the mere fact that a constitutional violation was a 'but-for' cause of obtaining evidence. Our cases show that but-for causality is only a necessary, not a sufficient, condition for suppression. In this case, of course, the constitutional violation of an illegal manner of entry was not a but-for cause of obtaining the evidence.
Scalia distinguishes evidence seized in warrantless searches from evidence seized in searches that violated the knock-and-announce rule, noting that:
[ex]clusion of the evidence obtained by a warrantless search vindicates [the] entitlement [of citizens to shield their persons, houses, papers, and effects, from the government’s scrutiny]. The interests protected by the knock-and-announce requirement are quite different—and do not include the shielding of potential evidence from the government’s eyes.
The interests protected by the knock-and-announce rule, according to Scalia, are to protect police officers from surprised residents retaliating in presumed self-defense, to protect private property from damage, and to protect the "privacy and dignity" of residents. Scalia says that the knock-and-announce rule "has never protected . . . one’s interest in preventing the government from seeing or taking evidence described in a warrant."
The majority opinion goes on to note that the costs of exclusion for knock and announce violations outweigh the benefits of admitting the evidence. Scalia states that the costs are small, but that "suppression of all evidence[] amount[s] in many cases is a get-out-of-jail-free card." The Court states that exclusion of evidence has little or no deterrence effect, especially considering that deterrents (a civil action against the police department and internal discipline for officers) already exist. Scalia ends the portion of his opinion which constitutes the majority opinion with praise for the "increasing professionalism" of the police force over the last half-century, which he says makes some concerns expressed in past cases by the Court obsolete.
Kennedy's concurrence
Justice Kennedy concurred in part with Scalia's opinion and concurred in the judgment that a violation of the knock-and-announce rule does not require a court to exclude seized evidence. Kennedy's concurrence emphasizes that the Court has not disregarded the knock-and-announce rule through its decision and that the exclusionary rule continues to operate in other areas of criminal law per the Court's precedent. Kennedy agrees with the majority that civil remedies and internal police discipline are adequate deterrents for knock-and-announce violations, but goes on to note that if a pattern of police behavior emerges that demonstrates disregard for the knock-and-announce rule, he would reevaluate his position.Dissent
Justice BreyerStephen Breyer
Stephen Gerald Breyer is an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Appointed by President Bill Clinton in 1994, and known for his pragmatic approach to constitutional law, Breyer is generally associated with the more liberal side of the Court....
, joined by Justice Ginsburg, Justice Stevens
John Paul Stevens
John Paul Stevens served as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from December 19, 1975 until his retirement on June 29, 2010. At the time of his retirement, he was the oldest member of the Court and the third-longest serving justice in the Court's history...
, and Justice Souter
David Souter
David Hackett Souter is a former Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. He served from 1990 until his retirement on June 29, 2009. Appointed by President George H. W. Bush to fill the seat vacated by William J...
, dissented. Breyer begins his dissent with a rebuke of the majority opinion,
In Wilson v. ArkansasWilson v. ArkansasWilson v. Arkansas, , is a United States Supreme Court decision in which the Court held that police officers must "knock and announce" before entering a house.-See also:* List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 514...
, 514 U. S. 927 (1995), a unanimous Court held that the Fourth Amendment normally requires law enforcement officers to knock and announce their presence before entering a dwelling. Today’s opinion holds that evidence seized from a home following a violation of this requirement need not be suppressed. As a result, the Court destroys the strongest legal incentive to comply with the Constitution’s knock-and-announce requirement. And the Court does so without significant support in precedent. At least I can find no such support in the many Fourth Amendment cases the Court has decided in the near century since it first set forth the exclusionary principle in Weeks v. United States.
Breyer goes on to examine the underlying case law, tracing the knock-and-announce rule to the thirteenth century, the writing of the Fourth Amendment, and the establishment of the exclusionary rule.
Breyer says that the strongest argument for application of the exclusionary rule to knock-and-announce violations is that it serves as a strong deterrent to unlawful government behavior. At the very least, according to Breyer, eliminating the exclusionary rule from consideration for knock-and-announce violations will cause some government agents to find it less risky to violate the rule. Pointing out that civil remedies are not an adequate deterrent, Breyer says,
[t]he cases reporting knock-and-announce violations are legion . . . [y]et the majority . . . has failed to cite a single reported case in which a plaintiff has collected more than nominal damages solely as a result of a knock-and-announce violation . . . . [C]ivil immunities prevent tortTortA tort, in common law jurisdictions, is a wrong that involves a breach of a civil duty owed to someone else. It is differentiated from a crime, which involves a breach of a duty owed to society in general...
law from being an effective substitute for the exclusionary rule at this time.
Breyer notes that, in precedent, the Court has declined to apply the exclusionary rule only: "(1)where there is a specific reason to believe that application of the rule would 'not result in appreciable deterrence,' or (2)where admissibility in proceedings other than criminal trials was at issue" (citations omitted). The dissent states that neither of these exclusions apply to knock-and-announce violations.
Breyer wraps up his dissent with a summary of his disagreement with the majority:
There may be instances in the law where text or history or tradition leaves room for a judicial decision that rests upon little more than an unvarnished judicial instinct. But this is not one of them. Rather, our Fourth Amendment traditions place high value upon protecting privacy in the home. They emphasize the need to assure that its constitutional protections are effective, lest the Amendment "sound the word of promise to the ear but break it to the hope."
. . .
[T]he Court should assure itself that any departure from that principle is firmly grounded in logic, in history, in precedent, and in empirical fact. It has not done so.
Scalia Misquote
Justice Antonin ScaliaAntonin Scalia
Antonin Gregory Scalia is an American jurist who serves as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. As the longest-serving justice on the Court, Scalia is the Senior Associate Justice...
was accused of twisting the arguments in Taming the System: The Control of Discretion in American Criminal Justice by its author, Samuel Walker. Scalia, in support of weakening the exclusionary rule, presents from Taming the System that there has been tremendous progress "in the education, training and supervision of police officers" since Mapp v. Ohio
Mapp v. Ohio
Mapp v. Ohio, , was a landmark case in criminal procedure, in which the United States Supreme Court decided that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, which protects against "unreasonable searches and seizures," may not be used in criminal prosecutions in state courts, as well as...
in 1961. However, Walker's main argument was that the Warren Court
Warren Court
The Warren Court refers to the Supreme Court of the United States between 1953 and 1969, when Earl Warren served as Chief Justice. Warren led a liberal majority that used judicial power in dramatic fashion, to the consternation of conservative opponents...
, including setting the exclusionary rule
Exclusionary rule
The exclusionary rule is a legal principle in the United States, under constitutional law, which holds that evidence collected or analyzed in violation of the defendant's constitutional rights is sometimes inadmissible for a criminal prosecution in a court of law...
under Mapp and the Miranda warning
Miranda warning
The Miranda warning is a warning given by police in the United States to criminal suspects in police custody before they are interrogated to preserve the admissibility of their statements against them in criminal proceedings. In Miranda v...
, set new standards for lawful conduct, and enabled curbs on abuse