Home | Business News | Browse by Publication | T | Trial

Mixed messages on the exclusionary rule.

Publication: Trial
Publication Date: 01-DEC-06
Format: Online
Delivery: Immediate Online Access

Article Excerpt
In Hudson v. Michigan, the Supreme Court, by a 5-4 vote, held that evidentiary exclusion is not required when police violate the Fourth Amendment by failing to properly knock and announce their presence to a suspect before executing a search warrant. (1) While this is itself an interesting issue, the more important question is whether the decision represents a significant undercutting of the exclusionary principle laid out in Mapp v. Ohio. (2)

Four justices in the majority--Antonin Scalia (the author), Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, and Samuel Alito--appear ready to eviscerate the exclusionary principle. The rule was saved from this fate in Hudson only by a confusing (or confused) concurring opinion written by Justice Anthony Kennedy.

In Hudson, police officers executing a search warrant violated the knock-and-announce rule of Wilson v. Arkansas (3) by waiting only a few seconds after they knocked before they broke into Booker Hudson's house. The officers made no claim that exigent circumstances justified their unannounced entry. (4) So Hudson squarely presented the question of what is an appropriate remedy for this Fourth Amendment violation.

In the most disturbing part of the majority opinion, the Court declared that "suppression of evidence ... has always been our last resort, not our first impulse." (5) The majority rejected as "expansive dicta" language in Mapp that declared a mandatory exclusionary rule for all Fourth Amendment violations. Many previous Court decisions had considered this language to be Mapp's central holding.

The majority further wrote that "exclusion may not be premised on the mere fact that a constitutional violation was a 'but for' cause of obtaining evidence. Our cases show that but-for causality is only a necessary, not a sufficient, condition for suppression." (6) In other words, even if the police would not have obtained the evidence except for the Fourth Amendment...

Access Full Article, Compliments of Goliath

View this article FREE - Now for a Limited Time, try Goliath Business News
Free for 3 Days!



More articles from Trial
The less-paper office., December 01, 2006
Sorcerers' Apprentices: 100 Years of Law Clerks at the United States S..., December 01, 2006
Soldier Slaves: Abandoned by the White House, Courts, and Congress.(Bo..., December 01, 2006
Judge rejects secrecy in med-mal settlement involving public funds., December 01, 2006
Guest worker litigation gains ground., December 01, 2006

Looking for additional articles?
Search our database of over 3 million articles.

Looking for more in-depth information on this industry?
Search our complete database of Industry & Market reports by text, subject, publication name or publication date.

About Goliath
Whether you're looking for sales prospects, competitive information, company analysis or best practices in managing your organization, Goliath can help you meet your business needs.

Our extensive business information databases empower business professionals with both the breadth and depth of credible, authoritative information they need to support their business goals. Whether it be strategic planning, sales prospecting, company research or defining management best practices - Goliath is your leading source for accurate information.