Talk:Hudson v. Michigan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.

A Few Questions

  • 1. Was this a Majority or a Plurality decision? In other words, does this establish a new precedent?
  • 2. Does anyone know how this new precedent will affect states with "Make My Day" laws. In other words, do citizens retain the right to shoot trespassers (including police) who do not announce themselves? Should a citizen shoot a peace officer without knowing him/her as such, would that citizen be criminally liable for such actions in jurisdictions with "Make My Day" laws? JJ4sad6 18:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
A few answers:
  1. The opinion, in substantial part, is a majority opinion. Only the final subsection of Scalia's opinion (section IV) was not joined by Kennedy. Thus, subsections I, II, and III of the opinion were adopted by five justices. So, yes, this does establish a new precedent. Note, however, Kennedy's emphasis in his concurrence: (1) the knock-and-announce rule is still in effect, and (2) if evidence surfaces that convinces Kennedy that there is a pattern of police behavior ignoring the rule, he might change his mind. IMO, the case is evidence of two things: (1) the rightward shift of the Court post-Alito, and (2) the rise of Kennedy's already considerable influence on the course of the Court's immediate future. Those two observations, IMO, are relevant to your question because I think we might have several more upcoming opinions (today's Rapanos v. United States is another good example, it's actually even more confusing) where people like you ask the same "is this precedent?" question.
  2. I don't know the answer to this question. I've never heard of "make my day" laws. I have heard of the castle exception, but I don't know if this decision does/will have any effect on that rule or not. My best guess, however, is that this case has no bearing on such laws/rules, as the issue in this case is the use of the exclusionary rule, not self-defense. - Jersykoยทtalk 18:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)