Provas

(Slip Opinion)

OCTOBER TERM, 2005

1

Syllabus
NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.
The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Syllabus

HUDSON v. MICHIGAN
CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MICHIGAN
No. 04–1360. Argued January 9, 2006—Reargued May 18, 2006—

Decided June 15, 2006

Detroit police executing a search warrant for narcotics and weapons entered petitioner Hudson’s home in violation of the Fourth Amendment’s “knock-and-announce” rule. The trial court granted Hudson’s motion to suppress the evidence seized, but the Michigan Court of
Appeals reversed on interlocutory appeal. Hudson was convicted of drug possession. Affirming, the State Court of Appeals rejected Hudson’s renewed Fourth Amendment claim.
Held: The judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.
JUSTICE SCALIA delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to
Parts I, II, and III, concluding that violation of the “knock-andannounce” rule does not require suppression of evidence found in a search. Pp. 2–13.
(a) Because Michigan has conceded that the entry here was a knock-and-announce violation, the only issue is whether the exclusionary rule is appropriate for such a violation. Pp. 2–3.
(b) This Court has rejected “[i]ndiscriminate application” of the exclusionary rule, United States v. Leon, 468 U. S. 897, 908, holding it applicable only “where its deterrence benefits outweigh its ‘substantial social costs,’ ” Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation and Parole v. Scott,
524 U. S. 357, 363. Exclusion may not be premised on the mere fact that a constitutional violation was a “but-for” cause of obtaining the evidence. The illegal entry here was not the but-for