Welcome, I'm Anastasia Glova bringing you the Cato Daily Podcast.

Full and edited versions of our podcasts are available on our website at

W.W. Cato.org

Justice Scalia delivered the majority opinion on Thursday in a case that questioned whether evidence obtained in a no-knock raid where police do not announce themselves before breaking in can be used later at trial.

The 5-4 ruling in Hudson v Michigan determined that this evidence is admissible in court.

What does all this mean for Americans?

Policy analyst Radley Balco explains.

What was at stake in Hudson v Michigan?

Well, over the last 25 years or so,

there's been a really disturbing trend in domestic policing,

and that is the overuse of SWAT teams

and the overuse of no-knock raids.

Since 1980, there's been about a 1,300% increase

in the use of SWAT teams, most of which go toward executing these types of raids.

In 1995, the court ruled that police have to knock and announce themselves before they go

into somebody's home.

That decision also gave police three huge exceptions

that they could use.

What this case basically said was that even when police

don't meet the very low bar to fit into one of those exceptions, there's still going to be no

sanction against the police for breaking the law. So what we're going to see is I

think an even more pronounced increase in these types of raids and consequently we're going to see a more

...