From the Hudson v. Michigan case it is clear that the application of the exclusionary rule is conditional on the case under study, and that the decision of one court with regards to its ruling can be undone by another court contrary to the defendant’s constitutional rights. As from the discussion it is clear that the application of the rule is under threat or threat due to its inconsistent application despite the infringement of the defendants rights, privacy and dignity. From the discussion it is clear that the provisions of this ruling are under threat as is evident from the conclusion from Hudson’s’ case.
Hudson v. Michigan is a verdict of the ‘U.S supreme court’ providing that an infringement of the 4th amendment demand that security officers and the police knock and make their presence known before they enter into any privately owned residence. However from the case the conclusion was that the ‘knock and announce’ provision was not substantial enough to be used to suppress the evidence retrieved from the warranted pursuit resulting from the search (Hudson v. Michigan, 2006).
Background of the case and decision arrived at
The background of the case was that on the 27th of August 1998 an officer by the name of Jamal Good accompanied by six other police personnel from the Detroit region arrived at the home of a suspect Booker Hudson in the afternoon that day. In addition, these officers had obtained a warranty to search the house in the search for drugs and firearms. Additionally, as provided for in the practice of making arrests; after announcing that they were there for a police search officer Good waited for only a maximum of five seconds then they entered Hudson’s house through the front door as it had not been locked (Hudson v. Michigan, 2006).
On entering the house the officers were able to find the suspect and some of his associates in the crime activities under question, moving around the house. After carrying out the search the police were capable of discovering some rocks of cocaine, twenty bags of crack and a revolver gun placed on the chair Hudson was found sited on. However, at the day of trial Hudson claimed that since the discovery of the illegal possessions were made as a result of a premature entry, due to the violation of the ‘knock and announce’ provision as per the exclusionary rule; then the evidence was subject to suppression therefore unusable in nailing him. This argument was founded on the exclusionary provision arrived at by the supreme court in the case ‘Wilson v. Arkansas 1995’; from which the conclusion was that any individual should be free of any unreasonable seizures and searches (Hudson v. Michigan, 2006).
From the case the conclusion was that Hudson was liable for conviction at the end of the numerous hearings of the case and appeals to different courts; based on the question of whether the exclusionary rule was applicable to the violation in question and that the interests to be protected by the exclusionary rule were those of human life or loss of limb; loss from breakage of property or the dignity lost due to the abrupt entry. As a result, the claim was that the rule could not be used in the interest of suppressing the seeing or retrieval of evidence by the government or its agents. Based on these variables, the ultimate conclusion was that the exclusionary rule was inapplicable to the case in question (Gittins, 2007, p. 1).
Discussion of the threat and trouble on the exclusionary rule
From the case in question it is very clear that the exclusionary rule is under threat or trouble; as from the Hudson’s case it is clear that the violation of the defendant’s constitutionally bestowed rights is conditional from one case to the other. In this case the exclusionary rule is put under a further threat based on the fact that even after it is granted by one court or a given level of court; another court or a different level of court may undo the decision in violation of the defendant’s rights as from the case discussed. From the original intention of the rule the defendant’s privacy and dignity are supposed to be protected; a case which is not enforced in the case involving Hudson as the police did not show any intention not to infringe his privacy and dignity. As a result it can largely be agreed upon that the exclusionary rule and the protection it is supposed to offer are under threat or trouble (Currier & Eimermann, 2009, p. 415).
Having discussed the conditions surrounding the case Hudson v. Michigan it is clear and evident that the exclusionary rule is under trouble as its observance is placed under conditional consideration. In addition, it should be noted that the decision arrived at based on it at one court can be undone by the ruling of another infringing the constitutional rights of the defendant.
Currier A. Katherine & Eimermann E. Thomas, Introduction to law for Paralegals: A critical
thinking approach (Aspen publishers 2009).
Gittins R. Jeffry, Excluding the Exclusionary Rule: Extending the Rationale of Hudson v.
Michigan to Evidence Seized During Unauthorized Nighttime Searches, 1Brigham
Young University Law Review 1. (Jan 1, 2007).
Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U. S. 586 (2006)