Hudson vs. Michigan and Breonna Taylor Case

The Reasoning of Courts in Hudson’s Vs. Michigan’s Case

In the 2006 case of Hudson against Michigan, the U.S. Supreme Court gets faced with the question of whether or not evidence seized should be suppressed despite the police officer’s violation of the Fourth Amendment’s “knock-and-announce” rule (Clancy, 2012). The majority opinion in Hudson’s vs. Michigan’s case affirmed that the lower Court’s ruling of the exclusionary rule did not apply to the evidence seized in the case. The majority and dissenting judges in the Hudson Vs. Michigan case both had different reasonings for their decisions. The majority of judges believed that the police officers did not violate the Fourth Amendment rights of the defendant. In contrast, the dissenting judges believed that the police officers violated the defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights.

The exclusionary rule is a legal rule that prohibits the use of evidence that has been obtained in violation of the law. It is designed to deter law enforcement officers from breaking the law to obtain evidence. The rule is not absolute, and there are several exceptions to it. For instance, the act is not applicable when evidence is gathered from a separate source, such as a referral from a trusted informant. Moreover, the rule does not apply if the evidence is acquired illegally but is later discovered through legal means, such as a search warrant. The Hudson case involved the search of a home without a warrant. The officers who searched did not find any evidence of criminal activity, but they found evidence used to convict the defendant of a crime.

The Court held that the officers had no justification for searching without a warrant and that the evidence should not be used to convict the defendant. Therefore, this case is critical because it established that evidence obtained through a warrantless home search is not admissible in Court (Clancy, 2012). This rule is essential because it protects the privacy of individuals and prevents the police from conducting searches without a warrant. The Court had to decide whether the exclusionary rule should apply to the evidence collected during the search. The majority judgment in Hudson ruled that the exclusion policy did not apply in this situation. The Judge ruled that the ruling is only applicable where the deterrent advantages while excluding the facts outweigh the societal costs.

Although the exclusionary rule is not absolute, there are exceptions to the rule. One of those exceptions is known as the “good faith” exception. The good faith exception allows evidence to be admitted into Court even if it was seized during an illegal search and seizure, as long as the law enforcement officers who conducted the search and seizure acted in good faith. In this case, the Court found that the benefits of excluding the evidence did not outweigh the social costs and also noted that the exclusionary rule is a tool to deter law enforcement officers from breaking the law (“FindLaw’s United States Supreme Court case and opinions, “n.d.). However, the Court also noted that the rule has several negative consequences. For example, the rule can result in the release of guilty defendants. In this case, the Court found that excluding the evidence would not significantly deter law enforcement officers but also harm the criminal justice system. The majority opinion stated that the interests protected by the knock-and-announce rule, such as human life and limb, property, and privacy and dignity, were not violated in this case.

The dissenting opinion in Hudson against Michigan case stated that the exclusionary rule should apply in this case because the police officer’s violation of the knock-and-announce rule was the but-for cause of the evidence being seized (Rutledge, 2020). The dissenting opinion reasoned that if the police officer had complied with the knock-and-announce rule, the house occupants would have had an opportunity to destroy the evidence before the police could enter the premises. Therefore, the exclusionary rule should apply to exclude the evidence seized due to the police officer’s violation of the knock-and-announce rule. In contrast, the knock-and-announce rule breach did not contribute to the evidence found, according to the majority judgment. Therefore the exclusionary rule should not have been applied in this context.

The majority determined that the proof would have been obtained regardless of whether or not the police officer followed the knock-and-announce requirement. Therefore, the exclusionary rule should not exclude the evidence seized due to the police officer’s violation of the knock-and-announce rule (Turner & Weigend, 2019). The dissenting opinion was based on the premise that the social costs of excluding the evidence in the case outweighed the deterrence benefits of doing so. The opinion noted that the evidence exclusion is typically justified based on protecting the rights of the accused; in this case, the interests of society need to be taken into account. The opinion reasoned that if the evidence is excluded, then guilty defendants could avoid conviction and continue to commit crimes with impunity. The opinion concluded that the social costs of this outcome would far outweigh the benefits of protecting the rights of the accused.

Understanding the Breonna Taylor Case

The Hudson vs. Michigan case is important in understanding the Breonna Taylor case because it establishes the precedent that police officers can be held liable for violating a person’s civil rights. Rutledge (2020) outlines that, in Breonna Taylor’s case, the officers involved were charged with federal civil rights violations, which means they can be held liable for her death. This is a critical step in ensuring that justice is served in her case and sets a precedent for future cases involving police brutality and misconduct. The Hudson vs. Michigan case is also important because it highlights the need for reform concerning policing in the United States (Mazloum, 2021). The officers involved in the Breonna Taylor case were not following proper procedure, resulting in an innocent woman losing her life. This case highlights the need for better training and oversight in policing, and it is a reminder that the current system is not working.

Finally, in Hudson v. Michigan, the dominant and the dissenting opinions varied as to whether the ruling would apply in these scenarios. The majority concluded that the Court’s decision did not apply, whereas the dissenting opinion concluded that it did. The majority and dissenting judges had valid points in their reasoning, but the Supreme Court ultimately sided with the majority in the Hudson vs. Michigan case (Turner & Weigend, 2019). This ruling has significantly impacted how police can conduct themselves when pursuing a suspect and has led to more debate on the issue of warrantless searches. Hudson vs. Michigan case is important because it establishes precedent and highlights the need for reform in policing. Some people argue that warrantless searches are necessary to help the police catch criminals, while others argue that they violate the rights of suspects (Mazloum, 2021). Ultimately, the decision of whether or not to allow warrantless searches is up to the government. The government has to weigh the pros and cons of warrantless searches, decide whether the benefits outweigh the costs, and decide which is more critical: catching criminals or protecting the rights of suspects.

Reference

Clancy, T. K. (2012). The Fourth Amendment’s Exclusionary Rule as a Constitutional Right. Ohio St. J. Crim. L., 10, 357.

FindLaw’s United States Supreme Court case and opinions. (n.d.). Findlaw. Web.

Mazloum, A. S. (2021). Executing privacy: Punishing and deterring unreasonable police conduct. Am. J. Criminal Law, 49, 95.

Rutledge, N. M. (2020). Real justice for Breonna: Reenvisioning knock-and-announce. Sw. L. Rev., 50, 419.

Turner, J. I., & Weigend, T. (2019). The purposes and functions of exclusionary rules: A comparative overview. Do Exclusionary Rules ensure a fair trial?, 255-282.