1、1 232 U.S. 383 (1914).2 367 U.S. 643 (1961).Congressional Research Service The Library of CongressCRS Report for CongressReceived through the CRS WebOrder Code RS22475July 14, 2006Hudson v. Michigan: The Exclusionary Rules Applicability to “Knock-and-Announce” Violationsname redactedLegislative Atto
2、rneyAmerican Law DivisionSummarySince the 1980s, the United States Supreme Court has issued a series of decisionsnarrowing the applicability of the exclusionary rule. As such, the exclusionary rule isinapplicable in civil cases, grand jury proceedings, and parole revocation hearings.Other exceptions
3、 to the exclusionary rule include inevitable or independent discovery,attenuation, and the good-faith exception. In Hudson v. Michigan,126 S.Ct. 2159(2006), the Court further narrowed the applicability of the exclusionary rule by findingthat the rule was not an appropriate remedy when police officer
4、s fail to wait a fewseconds after they knock and announce their presence while executing a valid searchwarrant. This report summarizes the Courts decision in Hudson and will not beupdated.Legal Background. Beginning with the U.S. Supreme Courts decisions in Weeksv. United States1 and Mapp v. Ohio,2
升级VIP 