About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

1 (July 14, 2006)

handle is hein.crs/crsajhm0001 and id is 1 raw text is: Order Code RS22475 July 14, 2006 CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web Hudson v. Michigan: The Exclusionary Rule's Applicability to Knock-and-Announce Violations Alison M. Smith Legislative Attorney American Law Division Summary Since the 1980s, the United States Supreme Court has issued a series of decisions narrowing the applicability of the exclusionary rule. As such, the exclusionary rule is inapplicable in civil cases, grand jury proceedings, and parole revocation hearings. Other exceptions to the exclusionary rule include inevitable or independent discovery, attenuation, and the good-faith exception. In Hudson v. Michigan,126 S.Ct. 2159 (2006), the Court further narrowed the applicability of the exclusionary rule by finding that the rule was not an appropriate remedy when police officers fail to wait a few seconds after they knock and announce their presence while executing a valid search warrant. This report summarizes the Court's decision in Hudson and will not be updated. Legal Background. Beginning with the U.S. Supreme Court's decisions in Weeks v. United States' and Mapp v. Ohio,2 the mandates of the Fourth Amendment have been enforced through the application of an exclusionary rule which generally states that evidence illegally seized may not be used against the defendant. In Weeks, a federal agent had conducted an illegal warrantless search for evidence of gambling in Mr. Weeks's home. The evidence seized in the search was used at trial, and Weeks was convicted. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment barred the use of evidence secured through a warrantless search. Weeks's conviction was reversed, and thus the federal exclusionary rule was developed. In Mapp, the Court held that the exclusionary rule should and did apply to the states. It was logically and constitutionally necessary, wrote Justice Clark for the majority, that the exclusion doctrine - an essential part of the right to privacy - be also insisted upon as an essential ingredient of the right to be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures. To hold otherwise is to grant the right 1 232 U.S. 383 (1914). 2 367 U.S. 643 (1961). Congressional Research Service + The Library of Congress

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most