The Supreme Court of the United States ruled 5-4 [guess who voted which way!] in the Hudson v. Michigan case as to whether “evidence can be used against a defendant even when seized in violation of a long-standing rule requiring a knock on the door before executing a search warrant” reports the Washington Post.
The 5-4 decision, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, ran counter to previous decisions requiring suppression of evidence obtained in violation of the so-called “knock and announce” rule.
A little background on the case from WaPo:
Today’s case, Hudson v. Michigan, stemmed from a 1998 drug and weapons search, authorized by warrant, of a home in Detroit.
While the officers yelled, “Police, search warrant!” before opening the door, they chose not to knock, they said later, for fear of being shot on the way in.
Having acknowledged that they broke the rule required under the Fourth Amendment’s search and seizure protections, the question today was whether the evidence was then properly admitted at a trial that led to the conviction of Booker T. Hudson or whether it should have been suppressed under the “exclusionary rule” established by the Supreme Court to deter unlawful police conduct.
Just taking a quick read over the AP article and the WaPo one, the impact of the new starting lineup of the SCOTUS is front and center.
The case was decided: Scalia, Roberts, Alito, Thomas and Kennedy for Michigan and in dissent: Breyer, Stevens, Souter and Ginsburg. The AP article states that now retired former Justice O’Connor was leaning towards ruling in favor of Hudson. The effects of the anti-privacy appointments of Roberts and Alito have only begun.
From what I can tell, this decision does not completely overrule the Fourth Amendment’s “knock and announce” rule, but it does give it a nice unannounced knock upside its head.
How many more cases like this one are coming up on the dockets to come in the long tenure of the 51-year-old Chief Justice Roberts. When will someone pull the reigns of the at the helm of the police state we live in? A police state, ironically, with less officers on the street, but with more leeway now to do as they please. Protesters gathered up by the hundreds. Critical Mass bikeriders dangerously corralled into orange plastic netting. Snatching up people first, asking questions later, if at all. With the extreme that is Guantanamo Bay looking more and more like it could be closer to a norm domestically.
Yes the police did have a warrant and yes there was evidence that was [previously illegally] collected. But doesn’t it just feel wrong? It did to me when I read the two articles. It’s a knock on the door, a technicality if you will. But a technicality still and this ruling narrowly circumvents it.
This case brings to mind Miranda rights. The whole “You have the right to remain silent…” schpeal we’ve all heard a bajillion times on cop shows and movies [and hopefully not on the receiving end]. You do not have to be notified of your rights unless they intend to interrogate you; you can be arrested without being read your rights as I assume those arrested en masse in orange plastic netting were. There are still plenty of people who do not know their basic rights. While it would be great to be able to have a 100% educational rate on one’s basic rights if one is arrested [I’ll save the hopes for a 100% voter turnout rate for another lifetime] it would be quite nice to know my most basic rights before interrogation.
Getting back to the case… Anybody over in Michigan follow this case through the appellate courts there before it hit the SCOTUS? And what are your initial reactions?
