The law blogosphere is abuzz with analyses, commentary, and criticism of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Hudson v. Michigan. The case involved Michigan's so-called knock-and-announce requirement, which forces police officers serving a warrant to announce their presence and wait before entering a home.



The High Court ruled that while it's all well and good to knock and announce, the rule doesn't necessarily have to be enforced. Cato@Liberty (http://www.cato-at-liberty.org) sees the decision as a poor interpretation of the Fourth Amendment's protection against unlawful search and seizure. He takes special offense at Justice Scalia, who has professed his belief in Constitutional originalism so many times in the past but now sees the Fourth Amendment as needing revision. Orin Kerr (http://www.orinkerr.com/) takes delight in pointing out that a staunch originalist like Scalia would take the side of the 'living Constitution' crowd.





The Agitator (http://www.theagitator.com/) also singles out Scalia for derision. Scalia's assertion that the police force is capable of governing itself and independently ensuring the protection of each citizen's Constitutional rights prompts The Agitator to ask what the Justice is smoking.