Quote:
|
Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce
Arguably defective knock and announce?? No, not arguably, I repeat:
There was never an argument by anyone (except you) that the knock and Announce was defective.
|
I don't think that given the circumstances that it
was defective, but
Michigan chose not to argue that point.
Note that the opinion observes that there's endless potential argument down that path (if five seconds after the announce isn't enough, is six? How about seven? How many knocks do there have to be? Is one enough? Two?)
Have you ever argued with a five year old? Anytime there is a secondary gain to them from extending debate with you, once you legitimize that there's something at issue there will be no end to the arguing. Hudson didn't give a shit about privacy or dignity here, that could indeed be addressed with a civl suit. What Hudson wanted here--his secondary gain--was a walk on the gun and the drugs, he could care less about your front door or whether you get your pants on when the cops serve a warrant, even though those are the very interests protected by knock-and-announce.
Because it presented a cleaner case, Michigan's strategy was to simply argue that
the remedy demanded by Hudson was inappropriate even if they stipulate knock-and-announce was defective. The Court agreed. I do too.
As you can see from the cites, the exclusionary rule has always been subject to competing interests, it isn't suddenly somehow crippled by this opinion.