Back in July, I had a long post at my now-dormant solo blog on whether a suppression remedy for knock-and-announce remedies survived the Supreme Court's June decision in Hudson v. Michigan for cases in federal court. I concluded that, to my surprise, the answer was probably yes.

  Today the D.C. Circuit became the first federal appellate court (that I know of) to address the question. The D.C. Circuit concluded that no, the Fourth Amendment decision in Hudson eclipses the statutory suppression remedy that existed pre-Hudson. Here's the key passage in the opinion by Judge Randolph, joined by Judges Williams and Griffith:

The short of the matter is that § 3109 and the Fourth Amendment have merged both in the standards governing entries into the home and in the remedy for violations of those standards. There is now one uniform knock-and-announce rule. We are thus faced with a conflict between Supreme Court decisions, a circumstance outside the Rodriguez decision requiring lower courts to follow a Supreme Court precedent directly on point even if later decisions have undercut its rationale. See Mozee v. Am. Commercial Marine Serv. Co., 963 F.2d 929, 935 (7th Cir. 1992). As to which line should be followed, we think it plain that Hudson, not Miller and Sabbath, now must control. Not only is Hudson the Court’s most recent pronouncement about whether evidence should be excluded as a remedy for knock-and-announce violations, but it is also the Supreme Court’s only thorough analysis of the issue.

  I don't think that's a persuasive argument, for the reasons I discuss in my post back in July. But I'm glad the argument is being made, and I wouldn't be surprised if another panel in another circuit will find it more persuasive than the D.C. Circuit did here.