Fruitless Poisonous Trees in a Parallel Universe: Hudson v. Michigan, Knock-and-Announce and the Exclusionary Rule
David Jason Rankin Frakt
US Air Force JAG Corps Reserve; University of Pittsburgh - School of Law
Florida State University Law Review, Vol. 34, p. 659, 2007
On June 15, 2006, the Supreme Court announced in Hudson v. Michigan that the remedy of the exclusionary rule would not be avail-able to suppress evidence found in searches after Fourth Amendment knock-and-announce violations. The decision represents the demise of the knock-and-announce rule and has broad significance for the future of the exclusionary rule. Hudson creates a potentially broad new exception to the exclusionary rule (the parallel universe exception) which relies on what police officers hypothetically could have done instead of what they actually did. It also creates a new class of Fourth Amendment violations (fruitless poisonous trees) which are automatically ineligible for the exclusionary rule. This Article provides a critical analysis of the majority opinion, responding to each argument made and addressing major logical flaws and inconsistencies in the rationales and reasoning offered by Justice Scalia. The Article also places Hudson in the broader context of the Court's jurisprudence and addresses the implications of the decision for the exclusionary rule.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 72
Keywords: Hudson v. Michigan, Knock and announce, exclusionary rule, Fourth AmendmentAccepted Paper Series
Date posted: July 11, 2012
© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollo1 in 0.297 seconds