Fruitless Poisonous Trees in a Parallel Universe: Hudson v. Michigan, Knock-and-Announce and the Exclusionary Rule

72 Pages Posted: 11 Jul 2012  

David Jason Rankin Frakt

US Air Force JAG Corps Reserve

Date Written: 2007

Abstract

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.

Keywords: Hudson v. Michigan, Knock and announce, exclusionary rule, Fourth Amendment

Suggested Citation

Frakt, David Jason Rankin, Fruitless Poisonous Trees in a Parallel Universe: Hudson v. Michigan, Knock-and-Announce and the Exclusionary Rule (2007). Florida State University Law Review, Vol. 34, p. 659, 2007. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2103817

David Jason Rankin Frakt (Contact Author)

US Air Force JAG Corps Reserve ( email )

United States

Paper statistics

Downloads
16
Abstract Views
200