HUDSON V. MICHIGAN
547 U.S. 586 (2006)
NATURE OF THE CASE: Detroit police executing a search warrant for narcotics and weapons
entered Hudson's (D) home in violation of the Fourth Amendment's 'knock-and-announce' rule.
The trial court granted D's motion to suppress the evidence seized, but the Michigan Court
of Appeals reversed on interlocutory appeal. D was convicted of drug possession. The State
Court of Appeals rejected Hudson's renewed Fourth Amendment claim. The Supreme Court granted
certiorari.
FACTS: Police obtained a warrant to search for drugs and firearms at the home of D. They
discovered both. Large quantities of drugs were found, including cocaine rocks in D's
pocket. A loaded gun was lodged between the cushion and armrest of the chair in which he was
sitting. D was charged with unlawful drug and firearm possession. The police announced their
presence, but waited only a short time--perhaps 'three to five seconds,' before turning the
knob of the unlocked front door and entering D's home. D moved to suppress all the
inculpatory evidence, arguing that the premature entry violated his Fourth Amendment rights.
The trial court granted his motion. On interlocutory review, the Michigan Court of Appeals
reversed: suppression is inappropriate when entry is made pursuant to warrant but without
proper ' 'knock and announce.' ' D was convicted of drug possession. He renewed his Fourth
Amendment claim on appeal, but the Court of Appeals rejected it and affirmed the conviction.
The Michigan Supreme Court declined review.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment