{
  "id": "RS22475",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "RS22475",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 316830,
      "date": "2006-07-14",
      "retrieved": "2016-04-07T18:56:18.323029",
      "title": "Hudson v. Michigan: The Exclusionary Rule's Applicability to \"Knock-and-Announce\" Violations",
      "summary": "Since the 1980s, the United States Supreme Court has issued a series of decisions narrowing the\napplicability of the exclusionary rule. As such, the exclusionary rule is inapplicable in civil cases,\ngrand jury proceedings, and parole revocation hearings. Other exceptions to the exclusionary rule\ninclude inevitable or independent discovery, attenuation, and the good-faith exception. In\n Hudson\nv. Michigan , 126 S.Ct. 2159 (2006), the Court further narrowed the applicability of the\nexclusionary\nrule by finding that the rule was not an appropriate remedy when police officers fail to wait a few\nseconds after they knock and announce their presence while executing a valid search warrant. This\nreport summarizes the Court's decision in  Hudson  and will not be updated.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/RS22475",
          "sha1": "cc0eb0b2db468e8eef9e2c28f66d8313ccf60588",
          "filename": "files/20060714_RS22475_cc0eb0b2db468e8eef9e2c28f66d8313ccf60588.html",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RS22475",
          "sha1": "61163346d4845dd651af66e5b15e2837d8a3d4b2",
          "filename": "files/20060714_RS22475_61163346d4845dd651af66e5b15e2837d8a3d4b2.pdf",
          "images": null
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": []
}