CA6: No suppression remedy for no-knock violation

The remedy for a no-knock violation is not suppression of the evidence—it’s a § 1983 action for violating the Fourth Amendment. Moreover, “An issuing judge need not eliminate every alternative explanation to find a ‘fair probability’ that contraband will be present. Gates, 462 U.S. at 238; see also Dukes, 758 F.3d at 938 (upholding probable cause when officers did not search an informant ‘prior to the drug transactions’).” United States v. White, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 6633 (6th Cir. Mar. 8, 2021). As to knock-and-announce:

White separately argues that police unjustifiably used a no-knock warrant to search his home. Although the Fourth Amendment incorporates the common law rule that officers must knock and announce their presence before executing a warrant, Wilson v. Arkansas, 514 U.S. 927, 929, 115 S. Ct. 1914, 131 L. Ed. 2d 976 (1995), an exception applies if officers face a threat of physical violence or if they seek evidence that might readily be destroyed, id. at 936. Whether this affidavit sufficed to invoke the exception is an open question. It will remain one. Even if the police violated the knock-and-announce rule, suppression is not the appropriate remedy. See Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586, 594, 126 S. Ct. 2159, 165 L. Ed. 2d 56 (2006). As Hudson explains, the key remedy for unjustified no-knock entries is an action under § 1983 for money damages, not exclusion of the evidence in a criminal proceeding. Id. at 597-99; see also id. at 603 (Kennedy, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment).