The recent State v. Caronna decision from the Appellate Division demonstrates why it is important to pay close attention to United States Supreme Court dissents in cases ruling against asserted federal constitutional rights. In this case, police officers executed a knock-and-announce search warrant at a residence without knocking or announcing but, rather, simply coming in through an unlocked door, saying hello, and walking into an upstairs bedroom.

When the defendant moved to suppress the resulting drug evidence the state responded, predictably, that the United States Supreme Court had already ruled, 5-4, that the Fourth Amendment did not require evidence that was seized in violation of a knock-and-announce warrant to be suppressed (Hudson v. Michigan (2006)). Didn’t that end the matter?

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]