Applying the finding of Hudson v. Michigan (2006) __U.S.__ [126 S.Ct. 2159; 165 L.Ed.2d 56] to the facts of this case, the court, without determining if failure to serve a copy of a search warrant to the defendant was a violation of the Fourth Amendment, found that the exclusionary rule does not apply. Hudson held that suppression of evidence is not an appropriate remedy for a constitutional violation that was not the unattenuated but/for cause of obtaining disputed evidence. Here it was undisputed that there was a valid search warrant. Although Hector was presented with a search warrant notice of service and the list of property seized, he was not served with a copy of the warrant listing the address to be searched or items to be seized. The court found that because the police were entitled to search because of the valid warrant the error was not a but/for cause of obtaining the evidence. Suppressing the evidence was not a proper remedy as it was disproportionate to the violation and did not serve the purpose of the exclusionary rule.