User:Assawyer/Hudson v. Michigan

Hudson v. Michigan (2006), was a case challenging that evidence, obtained through search warrants in instances that the police failed to knock and announce, was a violation of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The United States Supreme Court rejected this challenge, deciding on June 15, 2006, in a 5-4 ruling, that evidence is permissible when obtained through a search warrant, even if the police did not knock before entering.

Search
Police obtained a search warrant to search the home of Booker T. Hudson for illegal drugs and firearms, and on August 27, 1998, at 3:35 p.m. approximately seven Detroit police officers executed that warrant at Hudson's house. Officer Jamal Good testified at trial that he did not see or hear any activity inside the single-family house as he and the other officers approached. When the police arrived at the door, they announced their presence by shouting "police, search warrant." Good stated that he waited only about three to five seconds before turning the knob of the unlocked front door and entering Hudson's home with the other officers. Good, a 14-year veteran of the Detroit Police with six years in the Narcotics Division, testified that the reason he entered quickly due to concerns for his safety; he had been shot at numerous times when executing narcotics search warrants.

Immediately upon entering the house, Good saw petitioner seated on a chair in the living room and at least five other men and women were running throughout the house. During the search police found, on the chair Hudson was stitting in, a plastic bag containing 23 individual zip-lock bags, each containing [Cocaine#Crack cocaine|cocaine rock]]s. Inside Hudson's pants pockets, they found five rocks of cocaine, weighing less than 25 grams, and $225 in U.S. currency. Police also found a loaded revolver protruding from between the cushion and armrest of the chair. In addition, the police found a plastic bag on the living room coffee table containing two smaller baggies, each containing 24 zip-lock bags of cocaine.

Trial and Appeals
Hudson was charged with possession of less than fifty grams of cocaine with intent to deliver, MCL 333.7401(2)(a)(iv) and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, MCL 750.227b. At trial, Hudson moved to suppress all the evidence connected to the search, arguing that the premature entry, in violation of the knock and announce rule, violated his Fourth Amendment rights. At the evidentiary hearing, the prosecutor conceded that the police had violated the knock-and-announce requirement by waiting only three to five seconds before entering petitioner's home. The trial judge granted petitioner's motion to suppress.

In an interlocutory appeal by the prosecution, the Court Michigan Court of Appeals reversed, relying on Michigan Supreme Court cases holding that suppression is inappropriate when entry is made pursuant to warrant but without proper "knock and announce." App. to Pet. for Cert. 4 (citing People v. Vasquez, 461 Mich. 235, 602 N.W.2d 376 (1999) (per curiam); People v. Stevens, 460 Mich. 626, 597 N.W.2d 53 (1999)). The Michigan Supreme Court denied to hear Hudson's appeal to appeal.

Following a bench trial, Hudson was convicted of possession of less than twenty-five grams of cocaine, MCL 333.7403(2)(a)(v), and sentenced to probation for eighteen months.

Hudson appealed to the Court of Appeals on the sole ground that the evidence seized during the execution of a search warrant should have been suppressed because the police violated the knock and announce statute, MCL 780.656. The court rejected his argument and affirmed his conviction. The Michigan Supreme Court again declined to review Hudson's case.