Supreme Court Rules Police Don’t Have to Knock

In a split ruling last Thursday, the Supreme Court decided that drug evidence taken from a home search can be legally used against a suspect even if police don’t knock on the door or wait a “reasonable” period of time before going in.

The appellate ruling involved a Michigan man, Booker Hudson, whose case has been in and out of different courts for almost seven years. In 1998, seven police officers had a search warrant for Hudson’s home, but admit that they didn’t knock on the door and only waited a few seconds before entering. The police found Hudson on the couch with crack cocaine in his possession.

While Hudson was convicted of drug possession, the issue remained that the evidence used in his trial was improperly obtained and infringed on his constitutional right to privacy.

People have the right to answer the door in a dignified manner,” Hudson’s attorney David Moran told the Supreme Court.

In the past, the Supreme Court Justices have ruled that police officers should knock on the door, announce their presence, and wait 15 to 20 seconds before barging in. However, the higher court’s new ruling will give law enforcement more discretion to conduct search-and-seize warrants.

According to Justice Antonin Scalia who spoke for the majority, disallowing evidence seized from every “knock-and-announce violation” by police officers would lead to a torrent of appeals by accused criminals who want their cases dismissed.

However, Justice Stephen Breyer in his dissent wrote, “Our Fourth Amendment traditions place a high value upon protecting privacy in the home.” Breyer said that using evidence in a trial that was obtained in illegal searches should be suppressed.

“It weakens, perhaps destroys, much of the practical value of the Constitution’s knock-and-announce protection,” Breyer said, adding that with this new ruling, police may now feel free to regularly violate the knock-and-announce requirements since they know they probably won’t be punished.