IL: State supreme court likely would follow Hudson

Even if police violated knock-and-announce [and it was not even decided, but it seems they did not], the Illinois Supreme Court likely would follow Hudson and not suppress. People v. Chapman, 883 N.E.2d 510, 318 Ill. Dec. 279 (4th Dist. 2007):

Moreover, as a matter of law, violations of the knock-and-announce rule, even if proved, will not automatically result in the exclusion of evidence obtained as a result of the search. Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. ___, 165 L. Ed. 2d 56, 126 S. Ct. 2159 (2006). In Hudson, the Court held that the exclusionary rule is unwarranted under the fourth amendment (U.S. Const., amend. IV) for violations for the knock-and-announce rule. Hudson, 547 U.S. at ___, 165 L. Ed. 2d at 71, 126 S. Ct. at 2170. Given the recent decision of the Supreme Court of Illinois in People v. Caballes, 221 Ill. 2d 282, 313, 851 N.E.2d 26, 44-45, 303 Ill. Dec. 128 (2006), reaffirming that court’s commitment to the limited-lockstep analysis regarding decisions of the United States Supreme Court applying the search-and-seizure provisions of the fourth amendment, we believe the Supreme Court of Illinois would likely adhere to Hudson. Therefore, even if the trial court had found that the police failed to comply with the knock-and-announce rule, excluding the evidence obtained in the search would not necessarily have been required. In light of our conclusion that the trial court’s decision to deny the motion to suppress was not against the manifest weight of the evidence, we decline defendant’s invitation to address the appropriate remedy for a violation of the knock-and-announce rule under Illinois law.

Comment: It seems to me that there was no real knock-and-announce violation, although it was unusual. Here, the police used a modified flash-bang device in the backyard as a distraction. A true flash-bang device is literally a “destructive device” under federal law [trust me; I’ve briefed it], and they can set buildings on fire. Here, the purpose was to cause the bang and flash of light without destroying property or even breaching the house, all as a part of announcing the presence of the police. Then they knocked and entered, albeit a short time after knocking. There is no fixed time as to how long the police had to wait, and it is possible that that trial court could have found on this record that the time was too short. Factoring in the flash-bang in the backyard, maybe not. But, the question is moot in this case.