Case Brief Assignment

Hudson v. Michigan , 547 U.S. __ (2006) Supreme Court of the United States l ISSUE: Whether violation of the “knock -and -announce ” rule requires the suppression of all evidence found in the search. l SUBSTANTIVE FACTS: ü Police obtained a warrant authorizing a search for drugs and firearms at the home of petitioner Booker Hudson and found both items during the search ü While attempting to execute the warrant, they announced their presence but waited only a short time (3 to 5 seconds) before turning the knob of the unlocked front door and entering Hudson ’s residence ü Hudson was charged under Michigan law with unlawful drug and firearm possession l PROCEDURAL FACTS: ü Hudson moved to suppress all inculpatory evidence, arguing that the premature entry violated his Fourth Amendment rights ü The Michigan trial court granted the motion to suppress ü The Michigan Court of Appeals reversed based on prior Michigan Supreme Court precedent ü The Michigan Supreme Court denied Hudson ’s petition for review ü Hudson was convicted of drug possession ü He renewed his Fourth Amendment suppression claim on appeal ü The Court of Appeals rejected the argument and affirmed the conviction ü The Michigan Supreme Court again denied Hudson ’s petition for review ü The Supreme Court of the United States granted Hudson ’s petition for a writ of certiorari l HOLDING: When executing a valid search warrant, violation of the knock -and -announce rule does not require the application of the exclusionary rule; that is to say the suppression of evidence found during the search. l REASONING: While typically used to suppress evidence obtained during unlawful warrantless searches and seizures; the application of the exclusionary rule in other contexts requires balancing its deterrent benefits against its substantial social costs. If the deterrent benefits outweigh the substantial social costs, the exclusionary rule will be applied otherwise it will not. The substantial social costs of the exclusionary rule include setting the guilty free and leaving the dangerous at large. On the other hand, the deterrent benefits include several different types of civil actions that may be filed against law enforcement agencies when actual violations occur, citizen oversight boards for police organizations, and better training for law enforcement. l JUDGMENT: Affirmed Page 1 of 1 Hudson v 2/ 7/ 2017 mhtml:file://C:\Users\hende\Desktop\Business law\example of a case brief.mht