TITLE

DON'T KNOCK THEM UNTIL WE TRY THEM: CIVIL SUITS AS A REMEDY FOR KNOCK-AND-ANNOUNCE VIOLATIONS AFTER Hudson v. Michigan, 126 S. Ct. 2159 (2006)

AUTHOR(S)
Papik, Jonathan
PUB. DATE
September 2006
SOURCE
Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy;Fall2006, Vol. 30 Issue 1, p417
SOURCE TYPE
Academic Journal
DOC. TYPE
Article
ABSTRACT
The article focuses on the U.S. Supreme Court case Hudson versus Michigan which dealt with knock-and-announce violations committed by police. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari after the conviction of defendant Booker T. Hudson. Justice Antonin Scalia held that the exclusionary rule is not the appropriate remedy for such violations. It cites that civil torts suit may be the best remedy for such violations. It also mentions the complaint raised against civil remedies.
ACCESSION #
24524174

 

Related Articles

  • Excluding the Exclusionary Rule: Extending the Rationale of Hudson v. Michigan to Evidence Seized During Unauthorized Nighttime Searches. Gittins, Jeffry R. // Brigham Young University Law Review;2007, Vol. 2007 Issue 2, p451 

    The article argues that the rationale announced by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Hudson versus Michigan case should be extended to unauthorized nighttime searches. In 1914, the Supreme Court first introduced exclusionary rule, which stated that evidence obtained pursuant to an unauthorized...

  • CAUSAL RELEVANCE IN THE LAW OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE. Johnson, Eric A. // Boston University Law Review;Feb2008, Vol. 88 Issue 1, p113 

    The article discusses the causal relevance in the search and seizure law in the U.S. It explores the significance of cause to criminal law and tort. It examines the risk rule and wrongful aspect variant in the law in Hudson versus Michigan and New York versus Harris cases. It analyzes the...

  • The Exclusionary Rule and Causation: Hudson v. Michigan and Its Ancestors. Alschuler, Albert W. // Iowa Law Review;7/1/2008, Vol. 93 Issue 5, p1741 

    In Hudson v. Michigan, the Supreme Court held that evidence need not be excluded despite the fact that the police had violated the Fourth Amendment by failing to knock and announce their presence before conducting a search. The Court said that the constitutional violation was not a but-for cause...

  • Waiting for the Other Shoe: Hudson and the Precarious State of Mapp. Moran, David A. // Iowa Law Review;7/1/2008, Vol. 93 Issue 5, p1725 

    The author focuses on the U.S. Supreme Court case Hudson versus Michigan. He states that the case comes to be seen as a historic case leading to changes in law. He notes that the courts had applied the case to deny exclusionary relief to victims of knock-and-announce violations. He examines...

  • THE FOURTH AMENDMENT, THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE, AND THE ROBERTS COURT: NORMATIVE AND EMPIRICAL DIMENSIONS OF THE OVER-DETERRENCE HYPOTHESIS. Dripps, Donald // Chicago-Kent Law Review;2010, Vol. 85 Issue 1, p209 

    This essay engages in the risky business of predicting future Supreme Court developments. In the first part, I analyze the evidence suggesting that the Roberts Court might abolish the exclusionary rule. The critique of exclusion in Hudson v. Michigan is both less and more probative than appears...

  • High court expands police power to search. Richey, Warren // Christian Science Monitor;4/7/99, Vol. 91 Issue 91, p1 

    Focuses on cases being considered by the United States Supreme Court involving Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. Specific issues being examined, including the need for warrants to forfeit cars suspected for drug dealing; Comments of analysts and law...

  • Hudson v. Michigan and the Future of Fourth Amendment Exclusion. Tomkovicz, James J. // Iowa Law Review;7/1/2008, Vol. 93 Issue 5, p1819 

    The author focuses on the impact of the U.S. Supreme Court case Hudson versus Michigan on the future of the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule. The case relates to the violation of police officers of the knock-and-announce rule when they came to the house of Booker T. Hudson in Michigan. He...

  • Laptop Searches and the Fourth Amendment. Hofmann, Marcia // National Security Law Report;Nov2008, Vol. 30 Issue 4, p10 

    The article focuses on the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which protects people against unreasonable government searches and seizures. It says that while the Fourth Amendment applies at the nation's borders and requires that searches are reasonable there, the Supreme Court ruled that...

  • The "Special Needs" Exception to the Warrant Requirement. King, Martin J. // FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin;Jun2006, Vol. 75 Issue 6, p21 

    Examines the special needs exception as applied to situations in which law enforcement directly conducts searches and seizures without individualized suspicion for the purpose of minimizing a risk of harm. Critical factor in the validity of suspicionless searching; Reason the U.S. Supreme Court...

Share

Read the Article

Courtesy of THE LIBRARY OF VIRGINIA

Sorry, but this item is not currently available from your library.

Try another library?
Sign out of this library

Other Topics