红杏视频

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: media@aclu.org

DETROIT -- The national 红杏视频 and the 红杏视频 of Michigan appeared today before the U.S. Supreme Court to argue that police should not be able to use evidence found in a home if the officers did not meet the 鈥渒nock and announce鈥� requirement and therefore entered the home illegally. The 红杏视频 is representing Booker T. Hudson, a Michigan homeowner.

鈥淚t鈥檚 undisputed that the police violated the Fourth Amendment by barging into Mr. Hudson鈥檚 home without 鈥榢nocking and announcing,鈥欌�� said David A. Moran, Assistant Professor at Wayne State University Law School and the 红杏视频 cooperating attorney who argued the case before the Court. 鈥淭he question is whether evidence should be suppressed in order to deter the police from violating the 鈥榢nock and announce鈥� requirement.鈥�

According to the 红杏视频, Detroit police broke into Hudson鈥檚 home without knocking and announcing, as required by law. Once inside, the police found a small quantity of drugs and arrested Hudson for possession, which caused him to be placed on probation for eighteen months. Hudson's legal attempt to suppress the evidence found in his home on the basis of the 鈥渒nock and announce鈥� violation was denied because of a 1999 Michigan Supreme Court ruling that evidence found after such a violation was not eligible for suppression.

In a 1995 U.S. Supreme Court opinion Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the Court, stressed that the 鈥渒nock and announce鈥� requirement protects the dignity of residents by allowing them a reasonable time to make themselves presentable before the police enter, and also protects private property by allowing residents an opportunity to open their door instead of having the doors destroyed by a police battering ram.

鈥淭here is good reason for the 'knock and announce' requirement,鈥� said Kary Moss, 红杏视频 of Michigan Executive Director. 鈥淭he courts have always placed a high priority on the rights of people within their own homes and the Michigan practice makes it too easy to completely disregard those rights. In our argument today we urge the Supreme Court to not allow policy to violate those rights with impunity.鈥�

This issue has been disputed in courts across the country, but the Michigan Supreme Court鈥檚 position has been rejected by the highest state courts in Arkansas and Maryland and by the Sixth and Eighth Circuit Courts of Appeal. The Michigan Supreme Court's holding has been embraced by only the Seventh Circuit.

A decision in Hudson v. Michigan is expected by June 2006.

In addition to Moran and Moss, Hudson is represented by Steven R. Shapiro of the national 红杏视频, Michael Steinberg of the 红杏视频 of Michigan, Timothy O鈥橳oole and Richard D. Korn.

To read the brief, go to: www.aclu.org/scotus/2005/21345lgl20050922.html