Because the knock and announce rule protects interests that have nothing to do with the seizure of evidence, the exclusionary rule is inapplicable. (Hudson v. Michigan (2006) 126 S.Ct. 2159) At 5:30 a.m., in Portland, police officers went to appellant’s residence to serve an arrest warrant. Thirteen officers were assigned to enter the residence and, in total, forty-four officers were involved. Within seconds of yelling their presence, they broke the door in and detonated flashbang devices, seriously burning appellant and setting fire to a bed in another room. Windows were shot out with rubber bullets and other extensive damage was done to the property. Unnecessary destruction of property or excessive use of force can render a search unreasonable. The court conceded that the officers’ conduct here was a close call but ultimately did not need to determine if the entry was unreasonable because there was no causal connection between the discovery of the evidence and the conduct that is required to invoke the exclusionary rule.