TX1: Knock-and-announce violation doesn’t warrant suppression under Hudson

The CI was reliable and provided probable cause. A knock-and-announce violation doesn’t warrant suppression. Cleveland v. State, 2020 Tex. App. LEXIS 5829 (Tex. App. – Houston (1st Dist.) July 28, 2020):

Assuming without deciding the no-knock entry was unjustified, the illegal manner of entry would not show the trial court abused its discretion in denying Cleveland’s motion. The suppression of evidence is not a proper remedy for a violation of the knock-and-announce rule unless the defendant proves the violation was the unattenuated but-for cause of the seizure of evidence. See Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586, 592 (2006); State v. Callaghan, 222 S.W.3d 610, 613 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2007, pet. ref’d). Here, no causal connection existed between the officers’ manner of entry and seizure of evidence. Officer Parker obtained a valid search warrant authorizing seizure of cocaine and related evidence from Cleveland’s apartment. Thus, regardless of their manner of entry, the officers would have executed the warrant and discovered the incriminating evidence in Cleveland’s apartment.

We hold that the allegedly unjustified no-knock entry did not warrant suppression of the evidence because it was not the unattenuated but-for cause of the evidence’s seizure. See Callaghan, 222 S.W.3d at 613-14 (holding that officers’ violation of knock-and-announce rule before executing search warrant did not require suppression of evidence found in search as it was not unattenuated but-for cause of obtaining evidence).