I personally expect a very high scrutiny for no knock searches. They seem to be applied, along with the use of paramilitary police units, in a variety of cases where they would seem inappropriate. Almost as if, once you have a SWAT team, you get the "to a hammer, everything looks like a nail."
Scalia notes that: "Contrary to Hudson’s argument that without suppression there will be no deterrence, many forms of police misconduct are deterred by civil-rights suits, and by the consequences of increasing professionalism of police forces, including a new emphasis on internal police discipline. Pp. 8–13." should adjust the use of no knock searches, but I doubt that. Innocent people (and their family pets, etc.) are dying as a result of SWAT + no knock and I don't think the localized cases seem to impact the issue broadly.
I personally believe this type of policing should only be applied where there is a clear likelihood of violence. If a criminal can flush the evidence in 20 seconds or 30 seconds then maybe there's not enough of a crime to warrant the home invasion, and you bust the guy on the way to the grocery store and then go in the house, etc.
However, since I don't want an activist court ruling on contemporary policy issues (even policy I support) vs. the Constitution I don't have enough legal / historical knowledge to judge the decision either way. The 2nd Amendment appears more clear cut in both language and history in regard to various gun bans. A warrant allows the search. Beyond that, I honestly don't know if the no knock aspect crosses the line or not.
Charon
