In the 2005 case of Booker T. Hudson, Jr. v. Michigan, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that evidence seized in violation of the "knock and announce" rule could be used in court under certain circumstances. The "knock and announce" rule requires police to knock on a door and announce their presence before entering a home with a search warrant unless they have reasonable suspicion that doing so would be dangerous or futile or inhibit an investigation by allowing destruction of evidence. Hudson was convicted based on drugs found during such a search where officers had announced themselves but waited only three to five seconds before entering his home after receiving no response. The Supreme Court held (in a 5-4 decision) that while this violated the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches, it did not require suppression of evidence as remedy because police had acted in good faith believing they were following legal procedures.

In the case of Booker T. Hudson, Jr. v Michigan, 2005, Justice Breyer's dissenting opinion argued that the majority's decision to uphold evidence obtained in violation of the "knock-and-announce" rule undermined Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. He contended that this ruling would encourage police misconduct by removing a key deterrent - exclusion of illegally obtained evidence from trial proceedings. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority’s view that civil lawsuits could effectively deter violations as there was little empirical support for this claim and it did not take into account situations where rights were violated but no tangible harm resulted to sue for damages. Thus, he believed excluding such evidence at trial remained an essential tool in enforcing constitutional rights.