THE KNOCK-AND-ANNOUNCE RULE AND POLICE SEARCHES AFTER HUDSON V. MICHIGAN: CAN ALTERNATIVE DETERRENTS EFFECTIVELY REPLACE EXCLUSION FOR RULE VIOLATIONS?

The exclusionary rule in the Fourth Amendment knock-and-announce context has been challenged by the U.S. Supreme Court in Hudson v. Michigan. After Hudson, even if police fail to knock and announce prior to entering a person's home to search, any evidence found by police remains admissible at that person's trial. The Court reasoned that today police are better educated, trained, disciplined, and monitored by citizens; as a result, exclusion of evidence is no longer needed as a deterrent for police knock-and-announce misconduct during searches. This paper, using both legal and social scientific methodologies, examines the legitimacy of this aspect of the Court's reasoning by surveying chiefs in large U.S. cities concerning their perceptions of the efficacy and value of the various deterrents to knock-and-announce misconduct (e.g., exclusion, education, training, discipline, and citizen review). The study also surveys the chiefs on their departmental policies and procedures related to the knock-and-announce rule and police searches as well as their knowledge of the rule. The study's outcomes reflected in the paper enhance understanding of the efficacy of the exclusionary rule compared to the alternative deterrents for police knock-and-announce violations during searches.