Supreme Court Approves No-Knock Warrants
For decades, police were required to knock and announce themselves before entering a private home to execute a warrant. That protection has disappeared in the wake of a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that held that police can burst into criminal suspects’ homes without knocking if they have a valid warrant.
Overturning more than 90 years of precedent that held that such entries violated the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment ban on unreasonable search and seizure, the justices ruled in Hudson v. Michigan that Detroit police were justified when they barged into a man’s home looking for weapons and drugs.
As the nation’s highest court grows more conservative, and Constitutional protections are weakened or eliminated, it’s more important than ever to have an experienced criminal defense attorney fighting for the rights of defendants.
The ruling means that defense attorneys will have to use other proven methods to exclude evidence from trials that was seized during warrant searches. A skilled attorney may argue that permission was improperly obtained, that the search was improperly executed, or that evidence seized was outside of the scope of the warrant.
An experienced criminal defense attorney will use these avenues and other available options to challenge evidence and convince jurors that there is reasonable doubt in a defendant’s guilt.
“There are many ways to challenge evidence in a criminal trial,” said Darren T. Kavinoky, a top-notch defense attorney known for his expertise in having evidence excluded. “This ruling makes it more difficult for defendants to get a fair trial, but a skilled defense attorney will find a way to ensure justice.”
Four justices dissented from the ruling, saying the ruling will further erode the Constitutional rights of Americans and essentially give police a free pass to enter private homes without notice.
“It weakens, perhaps destroys, much of the practical value of the Constitution’s knock-and-announce protection,” Justice Stephen Breyer wrote on behalf of himself and three other liberal justices.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s Hudson v. Michigan ruling means it’s more critical than ever to have superb legal representation in any criminal matter. The top attorneys of the Kavinoky Law Firm employ tested methods to exclude evidence in criminal matters and ensure that defendants receive a fair trial.
