June 16, 2006 1:12PM 

# The Exclusionary Rule 

By [Tim Lynch](https://www.cato.org/people/tim-lynch) 

---

<a class="js-popover-trigger cursor-pointer popover-trigger" data-bs-placement="bottom" data-bs-trigger="click" id="popover-trigger"> 

SHARE 

</a> 

Yesterday’s ruling in *[Hudson v. Michigan](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=04-1360)* 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](http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/16/washington/16scotus.html?ex=1308110400&en=f5adf0b4a255928c&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss) 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](https://www.cato.org/pubs/legalbriefs/hudsonvmichigan.pdf), over the knock-and-announce doctrine, to a battle royal over the Fourth Amendment generally.

For background on the exclusionary rule, go [here](https://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1178).

##### Related Tags 

[Constitutional Law](https://www.cato.org/constitutional-law), [Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies](https://www.cato.org/robert-levy-center-constitutional-studies) 

[![Creative Commons License](/build/cato_2020/images/creative-commons.svg)](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/) 
This work is licensed under a [Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/).