factors in evaluating her credibility. This same reasoning also supports this Court's conclusion that Brumfield's attorney was not ineffective for failing to challenge the issuance of the warrant under Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978), particularly since the affidavit did not include any false statements. Brumfield cannot establish any reasonable probability that if he had challenged the basis for the search warrant as now suggested, his motion to suppress would have been granted. Hence he cannot establish either ineffective assistance or plain error in this regard. 10 . See Hudson v. Michigan, - U.S. --, 126 S.Ct. 2159, 165 L.Ed.2d 56 (2006). 11 . Id. at --, 126 S.Ct. at 2162. 12 . 514 U.S. 927, 929, 115 S.Ct. 1914, 1915, 131 L.Ed.2d 976 (1995) (<HOLDING>). 13 . Hudson, - U.S. at --, 126 S.Ct. at 2162
holding that knockandannounce principle is an element of the fourth amendment reasonableness inquiry because we have little doubt that the framers of the fourth amendment thought that the method of an officers entry into a dwelling was among the factors to be considered in assessing the reasonableness of a search and seizure holding common law knockandannounce principle forms part of the fourth amendment reasonableness inquiry holding that commonlaw knock and announce principle forms a part of the reasonableness inquiry under the fourth amendment holding that the common law knockandannounce principle forms a part of the fourth amendment reasonableness inquiry holding that whether an officers force was reasonable must be analyzed under the reasonableness standard of the fourth amendment