In June the Supreme Court will determine if the 4th Amendment is worth keeping

From Jan. 11, 2006, OneWorld article:

Forget the ongoing privacy debate over U.S. government spying on telephone conversations--soon you may not have the right to tell cops to wait until you open your door.

In a case involving a private citizen and police authorities of the Midwestern state of Michigan, a team of civil rights lawyers appeared before the Supreme Court this week to challenge the police practice of storming into homes to look for whatever they want as evidence of a crime.

The case was brought before the Court last year by Booker Hudson, a resident of the industrial city of Detroit. Hudson says he was arrested by several police officers after they broke into his home without any warning. Hudson was found guilty of possession of a small quantity of cocaine (found in the pocket of trousers), which led him to serve 18 months of probation, as sentenced by a judge at a local court.

_____________________________

The question posed in the brief [pdf] is as follows:

Does the inevitable discovery doctrine create a per se
exception to the exclusionary rule for evidence seized after a
Fourth Amendment “knock and announce” violation, as the
Seventh Circuit and the Michigan Supreme Court have held,
or is evidence subject to suppression after such violations, as
the Sixth and Eighth Circuits, the Arkansas Supreme Court,
and the Maryland Court of Appeals have held?

Powers continue to consolidate...