Hudson v. Michigan
2006 United States Supreme Court case / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about Hudson v. Michigan?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
SHOW ALL QUESTIONS
Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586 (2006), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a violation of the Fourth Amendment requirement that police officers knock, announce their presence, and wait a reasonable amount of time before entering a private residence (the knock-and-announce requirement) does not require suppression of the evidence obtained in the ensuing search.[1]
Quick Facts Hudson v. Michigan, Argued January 9, 2006Reargued May 18, 2006 Decided June 15, 2006 ...
Hudson v. Michigan | |
---|---|
Argued January 9, 2006 Reargued May 18, 2006 Decided June 15, 2006 | |
Full case name | Booker T. Hudson, Jr. v. Michigan |
Docket no. | 04-1360 |
Citations | 547 U.S. 586 (more) 126 S. Ct. 2159; 165 L. Ed. 2d 56; 2006 U.S. LEXIS 4677 |
Case history | |
Prior | Motion to suppress granted, Wayne County Circuit Court; reversed, Mich. App. May 1, 2001; leave to appeal denied, 639 N.W.2d 255 (Mich. 2001); defendant convicted, Wayne County Circuit Court; affirmed, Mich. App. June 17, 2004; leave to appeal denied, 692 N.W.2d 385 (Mich. 2005); cert. granted, 545 U.S. 1138 (2005); restored to calendar for reargument, 547 U.S. 1096 (2006). |
Holding | |
A violation of the "knock-and-announce" rule by police does not require the suppression of the evidence found during a search. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Scalia, joined by Roberts, Thomas, Alito; Kennedy (Parts I, II, and III) |
Concurrence | Kennedy (in part) |
Dissent | Breyer, joined by Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg |
Laws applied | |
U.S. Const. amend. IV |
Close