This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
The petitioner argues that the knock‑and‑announce rule is a core component of the Fourth Amendment right to be secure in one’s home.
According to David B. Salmons, an amicus brief argues that the knock‑and‑announce rule does not protect an individual’s privacy interest in the items to be searched.
Background and question before the Court
The case arises from a police entry that allegedly violated the knock‑and‑announce rule, raising the question whether such a violation triggers the exclusionary rule when there is no causal link to the seized evidence.
What each side argues
Petitioner (Booker T. Hudson, Jr.)
According to Petitioner, the knock‑and‑announce rule is a core part of the constitutional right to be secure in one’s house.
Respondent (Michigan)
According to Mr. Baughman, the exclusionary rule is premised on evidence being the product of police misconduct.
What happened at oral argument
Justice O'Connor asked whether any states allow no‑knock warrants.
Justice Kennedy asked whether, when there is probable cause to enter, there is a presumption of innocence.
Chief Justice Roberts asked how long the officers had to wait before they could enter.
Justice Ginsburg asked whether it would have been possible for the police to obtain a no‑knock warrant.
Justice Breyer asked about the harms that could result from officers entering without announcing.
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 95a9ce125837e9a37314-r1-4a3f5b1f521459f5.pdforal argument transcript
- ce0a4570bbecd575df10-r1-69e7b59737b7c64b.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 21, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.