Hudson v. Michigan

[coffee-guy]

Does anyone here have any familiarity with this case and the repercussions it could possibly produce for someone in a situation like we might one day find ourselves in (ourselves - meaning some SM members)?

[Shibby]

I'm not sure what you are asking. I think there is a difference between a controled delivery and "knock and announce" entry.

[coffee-guy]

I'm not sure what you are asking. I think there is a difference between a controled delivery and "knock and announce" entry.

I guess I was hoping that someone could help me to better understand what this does to our "Certain Inalienable Rights" etc - to me it seems as if an Authoritarian Regime is right around the corner (in the next 20-30 years max) and I was hoping someone like PI or anyone else familiar with these types of things could elaborate on what this really means to our civil liberties...

As for the "controlled delivery" v "knock and announce" being completely different you're exactly right BUT the fact that an unannounced "search and seizure" can NOW yield found evidence in court seems to reach beyond what Andrews v. Arkansas allowed and that changed things enough as it was....

[Primal Instinct]

Well, with regard to how this ruling would affect our Constitutional rights it could mean a lot. Basically, there is now a backdoor for law enforcement to circumvent the language of the Constitution. The majority ruling is a perfect of example of legislating from the bench. The Legislative branch writes the laws. The Judicial branch interprets them. The Executive branch enforces them. What we have seen here is that the US Supreme Court has effectively circumvented the Fourth Amendment clause against illegal search and seizure. It was not an interpretation of the Constitution but instead a new ruling opening a route around the search and seizure clause. That's legislation not interpretation.

From a cursory look at this case, it seems that the ruling in favor of unannounced searches and allowing anything into evidence found as a result of that unannounced search would seem to outweigh the negative effects of such an entry into someone's home. However, from a safety standpoint this type of entry places law enforcement personnel as well as the suspect and any other occupants of that home in needless physical jeopardy. You have armed police entering a private home without announcing who they are and the potential for armed occupants (not necessarily the suspect nor under criminal suspicion) to become surprised by such an entry and loss of life very well could result from this type of dangerous situation. That is exactly WHY police are trained to practice the knock-and-announce entry procedure.

I have not checked into this aspect deeply and the circumstances may apply differently from state to state but I believe that a resident would be within their rights to actually fire upon an unannounced, ARMED invader in one's home. Now this of course would be subject to legal review, but that is the main reason that law enforcement has to announce their intent to enter- to prevent as much as possible an armed exchange. An unannounced entry such as breaking in one's front door without announcing identity and intent prior to this action certainly could qualify from a occupant's standpoint as in defense of one's home if there is an exchange.


Keep in mind that the occupant(s) may or may not even be on the ground floor during daylight hours when such an unannounced entry is executed. In other words, one could be upstairs sleeping in a bedroom when the front door is crashed in and people start moving in through a private home. That occupant has a reasonable right to defend his/herself in their own home. That also may constitute using lethal force in opposition of a home invasion until identity of the law enforcement officers has been established. Unannounced entry clouds this this issue considerably and needless death or injury could result from such a poor (IMO) ruling.


Lastly, evidence seized against the suspect(s) or occupants will then be allowed into a leagl court prosecution accordding to this ruling. This seemingly encourages or possibly reinforces the practice of unannounced entry. There seems to be little difference on the surface between the knock-and-announce and the unannounced entry time frames because in most instances, the entire home is surrounded and effectively contained under police control. My opinion is that there should be mandatory knock-and-announce ruling reinforced by the US Supreme Court because by upholding such an action (allowing evidence to be admitted in an unannounced entry situation) was strong incentive for law enforcement to not practice such potentially life threatening procedures. Additionally and most importantly, a person should have the reasonable expectation of privacy in their own home and of their belongings, papers, etc. This was the purpose of the search and seizure clause in the Constitution and should be upheld, lest we change or compromise the principles that our Republic were founded upon. By challenging this clause and circumventing its protections the US Supreme Court has placed the Fourth Amendment on a slippery slope in which further Constitutional challenges could further compromise our other guaranteed Constitutional rights. This opens the door to a potential police state through "legal" avenues. You can be certain that law enforcement agencies (federal and local) will seek to increase their authority over the citizenry as they have been over the last 40 years. As can be evidenced by this spilt decision, the current US Supreme Court has signalled these agencies that they are willing to entertain these aims and has (IMO) even encouraged such Constitutional challenges. Keep in mind the judges that upheld the unannounced entry and searches hold the majority in the US Supreme Court and they hold lifetime positions. The dissenters in this case are older judges (Souter, Ginsberg, Stevens and Breyer) and will probably retire or die before Alito, Scalia, Roberts, Thomas and possibly Kennedy vacate their posts. This leaves open the possibility of much more bench legislation if the majority is held or expanded in favor of the conservatives and means that more Constitutional challenges will be inevitable in the move towards authoritarian government.