Decisions: No bar on evidence in police entry case

UPDATE: 10:29 a.m.

The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, ruled on Thursday that a violation by the police of the “knock-and-announce” rule when they enter a home with a warrant does not bar the use of evidence gathered in the search. “What the knock-and-announce rule has never protected…is one’s interest in preventing the government from seeing or taking evidence described in a warrant. Since the interests that were violated in this case have nothing to do with the seizure of the evidence, the exclusionary rule is inapplicable,” Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in the majority opinion in Hudson v. Michigan (04-1360) — a case that had been argued twice during this Term. A part of Scalia’s opinion, saying that the result was dictated by the Court’s prior precedents, had the support of only three other Justices. (Justice Kennedy’s concurrence is available here; Justice Breyer’s dissent is here.)

That was the last of four decisions announced on Thursday. The Court is expected to have more decisions next Monday. The Court expects to release 19 more opinions before beginning its summer recess. (The figure 19 assumes that the Court will issue separate opinions to decide two sequels to Crawford v. Washington, the 2004 decision limiting the use in criminal trials of out-of-court statements. The two new cases were argued separately, and the facts are different in each, thus indicating two opinions dealing with the differing nature of the “testimonial” statements in each.)

In a unanimous decision, the Court concluded that a federal judge’s order returning a securities lawsuit against mutual funds back to state court is not open to appeal to a Circuit Court. Justice David H. Souter wrote the unanimous decision in Kircher v. Putnam Funds Trust (05-409).

In another ruling, the Court decided that claims for unpaid workers’ compensation premiums owed by an employer do not have a priority status in bankruptcy. The 6-3 decision came in Howard Delivery Service v. Zurich American Insurance (05-128). (Justice Kennedy’s dissent is available here.)

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote that decision. In a second ruling which she authored, the Court decided that a government contractor providing health benefits for federal employees may not sue in federal court to enforce the terms of its contract with the government. That decision, also dividing the Court 6-3, came in Empire Healthchoice v. McVeigh (05-200). (Justice Breyer’s dissent is available here.) (Correction: as a reader notes, the division was 5-4, not 6-3.)

The Court at 10:23 a.m. recessed until 3:15 p.m., when it will return to the bench to receive a resolution of memorial for the late Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist. The next public session will be at 10 a.m. next Monday.