People v. Frank S.

Opinion

GEMELLO, J.

Defendant Frank S. contends that his counsel was ineffective for failing to move to suppress evidence discovered incident to his arrest. He argues that the arresting officer’s violation of the knock-and-announce rule requires exclusion of the evidence. The claim fails because the United States Supreme Court recently held in Hudson v. Michigan (2006) 547 U.S. _ [165 L.Ed.2d 56, 126 S.Ct. 2159] that violation of the knock-and-announce rule does not justify application of the exclusionary rule. In the unpublished parts of this decision, we also reject defendant’s claims that…