Triple

Given a phrase, classify it is english named entity (e.g., persons, organizations, works of art) in Latin script, or not (e.g., literals, dates, URLs, verbose phrases). For disambiguation, the statement where the phrase occurs as object is also given. Please return a JSON object with `phrase` (string, the phrase being analyzed) and `is_ne` (boolean, indicating whether the phrase is a Named Entity).

Phrase: Hudson v. Michigan | Statement: [Herring v. United States, relatedCase, Hudson v. Michigan]

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.

Generate a one-sentence description of the target entity. 
You are given a context triple in the form (subject, predicate, object), where the object is the target entity. 
# Instructions
Use the triple to infer relevant information about the entity. Describe the entity based on what is most defining, well-known. 
Avoid repeating the information from the triple, unless really essential.
# Response Format
Return only the sentence: "Description: [one-sentence description of the target entity]"

Entity: Hudson v. Michigan
Triple: [Herring v. United States, relatedCase, Hudson v. Michigan]

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.

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