Hudson v. Michigan
E1516251
UNEXPLORED
Hudson v. Michigan is a 2006 U.S. Supreme Court decision that limited the application of the exclusionary rule by holding that evidence need not be suppressed when police violate the "knock-and-announce" requirement before executing a search warrant.
All labels observed (1)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Hudson v. Michigan canonical | 1 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T22061397 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.
NED1
Entity disambiguation (via context triple)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Hudson v. Michigan Context triple: [Herring v. United States, relatedCase, Hudson v. Michigan]
-
A.
Michigan v. Doran
Michigan v. Doran is a 1978 U.S. Supreme Court decision that clarified the limited role of asylum states in reviewing extradition requests from other states under the Extradition Clause and federal statute.
-
B.
Michigan v. Tucker
Michigan v. Tucker is a 1974 U.S. Supreme Court decision that limited the exclusionary rule’s application to statements obtained without full Miranda warnings, holding that derivative evidence from such statements could still be admissible.
-
C.
Hudson v. Palmer
Hudson v. Palmer is a 1984 U.S. Supreme Court decision that held prisoners have no reasonable expectation of privacy in their cells under the Fourth Amendment.
-
D.
Hudson v. McMillian
Hudson v. McMillian is a 1992 U.S. Supreme Court case that held that the use of excessive physical force against a prisoner can violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment even when the inmate does not suffer serious injury.
-
E.
Michigan v. Bryant
Michigan v. Bryant is a 2011 U.S. Supreme Court decision that further defined the scope of the Confrontation Clause by clarifying when statements made to police are considered “testimonial” and thus subject to Sixth Amendment protections.
- F. None of above. chosen
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
NED2
Entity disambiguation (via description)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Hudson v. Michigan Target entity description: Hudson v. Michigan is a 2006 U.S. Supreme Court decision that limited the application of the exclusionary rule by holding that evidence need not be suppressed when police violate the "knock-and-announce" requirement before executing a search warrant.
-
A.
Michigan v. Doran
Michigan v. Doran is a 1978 U.S. Supreme Court decision that clarified the limited role of asylum states in reviewing extradition requests from other states under the Extradition Clause and federal statute.
-
B.
Michigan v. Tucker
Michigan v. Tucker is a 1974 U.S. Supreme Court decision that limited the exclusionary rule’s application to statements obtained without full Miranda warnings, holding that derivative evidence from such statements could still be admissible.
-
C.
Hudson v. Palmer
Hudson v. Palmer is a 1984 U.S. Supreme Court decision that held prisoners have no reasonable expectation of privacy in their cells under the Fourth Amendment.
-
D.
Hudson v. McMillian
Hudson v. McMillian is a 1992 U.S. Supreme Court case that held that the use of excessive physical force against a prisoner can violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment even when the inmate does not suffer serious injury.
-
E.
Michigan v. Bryant
Michigan v. Bryant is a 2011 U.S. Supreme Court decision that further defined the scope of the Confrontation Clause by clarifying when statements made to police are considered “testimonial” and thus subject to Sixth Amendment protections.
- F. None of above. chosen
Referenced by (1)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.