Following is the case brief for Hudson v. At trialHudson moved to have the evidence suppressed, claiming that the violation of the knock and announce rule violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The Court held the subsequently discovered evidence is admissible since the social cost of excluding it is greater than the deterrent effect the knock and announce rule could have on police in preventing future rule violations.
Narrow Understandings Of Hudson: Broad Understandings Of Hudson: The Severability of Fourth Amendment Events. A Second Branch Sprouts. I am indebted to Dan Burrows, Casey Kannenberg, Kevin Kehe, and Jake Sadovsky for their excellent assistance in the preparation of this Article and to Jackie Hand for her always top-notch administrative assistance.
Page I Introduction Early in my contemplation of Hudson v. Michigan,1 I began to feel a bit like Goldilocks, the golden-haired child who trespassed into the home of the three bears, ate their food, broke their furniture, occupied their beds, and then fled when the bears returned.
In fact, I have never been sure of the intended message of Goldilocks,3 and, as will be seen, I remain quite uncertain about the moral of Booker T. Hudson's story, as well. Instead, my feeling sprang from a distinct impression that-like the bowls of porridge that were too hot, too cold, and Hudson v michigan right, the chairs that were too large or hardtoo small or softand just right, and the beds that were too hard, too soft, and, once again, just right-the future of the exclusionary rule foreshadowed in Hudson might lie at one extreme, at the other, or somewhere in between.
The more I have studied Hudson and the intriguing variety of interpretations and uses of it by lower courts in the short time since it was handed down, the more confident I have become that it is susceptible to both extreme and middle-ground interpretations.
It can be read as exceedingly narrow, as astonishingly broad, or as an exercise in balance and moderation. Thus, the Goldilocks analogy works, but only to a point. The more I have examined the opinion and its aftermath, the more convinced I am that Hudson does not offer three distinct, well-defined possibilities for the exclusionary rule's future.
Rather, Hudson suggests a number of plausible destinations for the Fourth Amendment suppression remedy, which range across a broad spectrum. The shortcomings of the Goldilocks analogy, which became apparent as I grew more and more familiar with Hudson's nuances, prompted me to search for a more appropriate fable.
The story of the elephant and the six blind men quickly came to mind. In that tale, because each of the sightless men uses his hands to feel a different part of the beast, the result is a sextet of dramatically different descriptions.
By focusing attention on each of the many facets of Hudson in isolation and closing one's eyes to its other aspects, it is possible to produce a similar array of depictions of the constituent parts, none of which captures the entire beast.
In this Article, my object is to assume the roles of all six blind men and Goldilocks in order to provide an account that encompasses the entirety of Hudson. I will identify interpretations that I believe to be the most plausible versions of the exclusionary rule's future, ruling out those that, at present, seem too hot or cold, too large or small, or too hard or soft.
Because Hudson is a signpost at a multi-pronged fork in the road-a marker that points in many directions at once-I will not offer a single, lucid prediction about the journey that lies ahead. For now, travelers in search of the twenty-first-century exclusionary rule will have to settle for a variety of possibilities and an assessment of their probabilities.
Although my primary focus will be on discerning and interpreting Hudson's significance for the future of the Fourth Amendment suppression remedy, evaluations and critiques of the Court's logic and of the future directions that I suggest will appear along the way. My views about the outcomes to be preferred and those to be avoided should be evident by the end.
After this introduction, I begin with a thorough foundational description of the Hudson majority opinion and Justice Kennedy's concurrence, as well as a cursory depiction of the contrary reasoning and conclusions of the dissenters.
Next, I discuss three understandings that lie between those extremes, describing their contours and exploring how each signifies likely future constrictions of the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule. Finally, I offer a few modest, concluding reflections. Majority Premises, Concurring Qualifications, And Dissenting Challenges The main goal here is to lay the foundation for the analyses that follow by closely examining the premises and conclusions of the Hudson majority opinion and the significant contributions of Justice Kennedy's concurrence.
Hudson's Michigan home, entered, and conducted a search authorized by the warrant.The exclusionary rule in the Fourth Amendment knock-and-announce context has been challenged by the U.S. Supreme Court in Hudson v. Michigan. After Hudson, even if police fail to knock and announce prior to entering a person's home to search, any evidence found .
Does the inevitable discovery doctrine create a per se exception to the exclusionary rule for evidence seized after a Fourth Amendment "knock and announce" violation, as the Seventh Circuit and the Michigan Supreme Court have held, or is evidence subject to suppression after such violations, as the Sixth and Eighth Circuits, the Arkansas Supreme Court, and the Maryland Court.
Jun 23, · Communities For Equity v. Michigan HS Athletic Association Procedural History: Plaintiff seeks certification of class action for all females in MHSAA schools (present and future) who are adversely affected by school district’s discriminatory conduct.
Hudson v. Michigan. By Admin in forum Criminal Procedure Case Briefs Replies. HUDSON V. MICHIGAN AND THE ONGOING accountability in law enforcement institutions.
Part III will discuss three areas of law where legal rules have given law enforcement officials extraordinary protection from liability for official misconduct.
Specifically, Part III will discuss first how. Hudson argued that they had violated his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. The District Court ruled that the guards had used force when there was no need to do so, violating the Eighth Amendment, and that Hudson was therefore entitled to damages.
2 HUDSON v. MICHIGAN Syllabus unannounced entry may provoke violence from a surprised resident), property (because citizens presumably would open the door upon an announcement, whereas a forcible entry may destroy it), and privacy and dignity of the sort that can be offended by a sudden entrance.