Hudson v. Michigan
Hudson was charged and convicted in state court with possession of cocaine and a firearm after Detroit police officers entered and searched Hudson’s home, pursuant to a warrant. Hudson argued that the evidence against him was seized in violation of the “knock and announce” rule of the Fourth Amendment, which requires the police to knock, announce their presence, and wait 20-30 seconds before executing a search warrant, except in exigent circumstance. The trial judge granted Hudson's motion to suppress the evidence because the officers failed to knock on Hudson’s door and then waited only three to five seconds after announcing their presence before entering his home. The Michigan Court of Appeals reversed, holding that it was bound by two cases decided by the Michigan Supreme Court that created an "exception" to the suppression of evidence obtained in violation of the knock and announce rule when the evidence would inevitably have been discovered.
Question Presented:
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 Court of Appeals 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 of Appeals have held?
