Judge Moylan espouses on the exclusionary rule, post-Hudson

The uninimitable Judge Moylan of the Maryland Court of Special Appeals held in State v. Savage, 2006 Md. App. LEXIS 152 (September 8, 2006), that Hudson applied to a search occurring before it was decided, and held that there was no exclusionary remedy for a violation of knock and announce. It is a 75 page opinion exploring the history of knock-and-announce and application of the exclusionary rule which is worth reading [click on case name for a free link] if one has the time.

After its extensive analysis of the pro’s and con’s of the exclusionary rule–its purpose and its history–the Supreme Court concluded that, on balance, the exclusion of evidence is too heavy a price to pay for a “knock and announce” violation and that there are, moreover, other viable alternatives.

[T]he social costs of applying the exclusionary rule to knock-and-announce violations are considerable; … the extant deterrents against them are substantial–incomparably greater than the factors deterring warrantless entries when Mapp was decided. Resort to the massive remedy of suppressing evidence of guilt is unjustified.

165 L. Ed. 2d at 69 (emphasis supplied).

Without an exclusionary rule, there is no way to win a suppression hearing.

Officers had PC to believe that bank robbery suspects were in the place entered without a warrant and based on the consent of the lessee of the apartment they were hiding in. United States v. Hiley, 201 Fed. Appx. 403 (9th Cir. September 7, 2006)* (unpublished).

Defendant’s contention he did not understand that officers wanted to seize his computer for forensic evaluation for containing child porn was rejected. The testimony was hardly in dispute on defendant’s demeanor and cooperation. United States v. Miller, 450 F. Supp. 2d 1321 (M.D. Fla. July 6, 2006).*

Samson does not apply to a probation search of a juvenile in Pennsylvania because it is defined by statute. A search of the juvenile’s premises who was on probation, but based on his brother’s probation, was invalid as lacking reasonable suspicion. Appeal of J.E., A Minor, 2006 PA Super 249, 2006 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2635 (September 8, 2006).

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.