In Hudson v. Michigan the Supreme Court yesterday held that evidence from a search need not be suppressed although the police violated the "knock and announce" rule." The officers had a warrant and they announced their presence, but they did not knock and they waited only a few seconds before walking through the home's unlocked door.
Robert Ambrogi at Law.com summarizes commentary by several bloggers. Some worry that the case signals the decline (or death) of the exclusionary rule.
Filed in: SupremeCourt, cases, Hudson-v-Michigan, Ambrogi, 4th-amendment, exclusionary-rule, knock-and-announce
Graphic by mw. (By the way, I know these pictures are not great art. I just hope that some splashes of color will break up the screen a little. And the fastest way to get art without having to ask permission to use it is to create it myself.)