Hudson v. Michigan - Oral Reargument - May 18, 2006

Hudson v. Michigan

Media for Hudson v. Michigan

Audio Transcription for Opinion Announcement - June 15, 2006 in Hudson v. Michigan
Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - January 09, 2006 in Hudson v. Michigan

Audio Transcription for Oral Reargument - May 18, 2006 in Hudson v. Michigan

John G. Roberts, Jr.:

We'll hear reargument this morning in Hudson v. Michigan.

Mr. Moran.

David A. Moran:

Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court--

For centuries the knock and announce rule has been a core part of the right of the people to be secure in their houses from unreasonable searches and seizures.

It reflects the notion that when the government has the right to enter a house, whether to perform an arrest, to search for evidence, or to seize goods, that the people should have the right to answer the door in a dignified manner, except in an emergency, and to avoid the unnecessarily gratuitous embarrassment and shock that often follows a precipitous police entry.

John G. Roberts, Jr.:

So wouldn't it be more accurate to say that it's protected the right to be free from unreasonable entry as opposed to unreasonable search and seizure?

David A. Moran:

Well, this Court has recognized in Wilson, consistent with the common law authorities, Mr. Chief Justice, that they are connected, that the entry directly affects the reasonableness of the search and seizure that occurs within.

And that's why this Court in Miller and in Sabbath suppressed the evidence following knock and announce violations.

But in Wilson, this Court directly stated that the common law, the Fourth Amendment,... the common law that informs the Fourth Amendment, directly demonstrates that the Framers thought that the method of entry directly affects whether a search or seizure inside a home is reasonable.

Anthony M. Kennedy:

So... so in your view, there has to be a 4- to 6-hour search for complex financial records, business documents.

There's a warrant.

The search is otherwise proper.

They forget to knock.

They say, oh, you know, we are police officers.

There's a discussion for a while.

But... anything seized after that is... must be suppressed.

David A. Moran:

If there is--

Anthony M. Kennedy:

It just seems to me in the hypothetical I put... and there's obviously a reason I put it... is there's just no causal link between the... the suppression and... and the failure to knock.

David A. Moran:

--Your Honor, the evidence inside... the evidence is seized inside.

The seizure of the evidence inside is directly related to the manner of entry, just as there's a direct causal link between when the officers come in without a warrant when they should have gotten a warrant first.

They thought there was an exigent--

Anthony M. Kennedy:

Well, but you say directly related.

That... that assumes the very point that I have in mind.

I don't know why it's directly related.

David A. Moran:

--Well, going back to Wilson, this Court said in Wilson, if I might quote from Wilson, that the... the common law search and seizure leaves no doubt that the reasonableness of a search of a dwelling may depend in part on whether law enforcement officers announce their presence and authority prior to entering.

Anthony M. Kennedy:

It depends... it depends in part.

David A. Moran:

It depends in part, certainly.

There are other factors as well, but the reasonableness of the search depends in part.

The issue--

Antonin Scalia:

Counsel, what... what do you do with our opinion in... in 1986 in Segura v. United States, which seems to me to contradict your assertion that you cannot separate, for purposes of the exclusionary rule, the manner of entry from the search?