In State v. Oliver, 2007-Ohio-372, the Ohio Supreme Court held that the trial court must reconsider its decision to suppress evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment "knock and announce" rule. The trial court and the court of appeals made their decision before the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Hudson v. Michigan , No. 04-1360 (U.S. Supreme Court June 15, 2006). Hudson held that even if the police violate the knock and announce rule, a court must balance the police misconduct against the costs of letting the guilty go free.
A dissenting opinion by Justice Paul E. Pfeifer stated that the court failed to consider whether the Hudson knock and announce rule passes muster under Ohio Constitution. Pfeifer cited several cases holding that the Ohio Constitution affords more rights than the U.S. Constitution in search and seizure and police interrogation situations. See Trial Court to Reconsider ‘Knock and Announce’ Case In Light of U.S. Supreme Court Decision, Ohio Supreme Court Opinion Summaries, Feb. 14 ,2007; Police Benefit from Ruling by Reginald Fields, The Plain Dealer, Feb. 15 ,2007. Also see our prior post concerning the Hudson case: Suppression not Required for Violation of Knock and Announce