Yesterday’s ruling in Hudson v. Michigan could prove to be a landmark Supreme Court precedent. We already knew that it was an important case involving the “knock-and-announce” principle, but, as New York Times reporter Linda Greenhouse observes today, the majority opinion is so “dismissive of the exclusionary rule as to serve as an invitation to bring a direct challenge to the rule in a future case.”
I’m afraid that may well be right. If so, it means we are moving from an important battle, which we just lost, over the knock-and-announce doctrine, to a battle royal over the Fourth Amendment generally.
For background on the exclusionary rule, go here.