[TChris]

“It weakens, perhaps destroys, much of the practical value of the Constitution’s knock-and-announce protection,” Justice Stephen Breyer wrote...

Wow, I looked and just can't seem to find the phrase "knock and announce" in the Fourth Amendment. Mr. Breyer, would you be so kind as to point it out for me? Oh, guess not.

[Huck]

True, but "unreasonable" is a nebulous term that the SCOTUS has basically defined over time. There's no getting around that. I just don't see what difference it makes if they knock. They've got a warrant. How does knocking make a difference?

[atomicpossum]

Wow, I looked and just can't seem to find the phrase "knock and announce" in the Fourth Amendment. Mr. Breyer, would you be so kind as to point it out for me? Oh, guess not.

Maybe he found it in a Paraguayan statute.

[I still care]

It's right next to the separation of church and state clause. Near the right to abortion amendment.

It's all in there, you just have to look with the special socialist glasses the ACLU hands out.

[takenoprisoner]

you'll find it in hitlers handbook though

[TruthShallSetYouFree]

Wow, I looked and just can't seem to find the phrase "knock and announce" in the Fourth Amendment.

It's seventeen lines below the "Right to Abortion." Get your eyes checked. :)

[Schuck]

The knock and announce requirement is not specifically in the Fourth Amendment because it predates that amendment by decades--it was a common law right long before the Constitution was written. I would, however, refer you to the Ninth Amendment.

Can't help but notice that many of the "Does it really matter? It only affects criminals" arguments here echo those of gun-grabbers with regard to the Second Amendment. The Bill of Rights is not a menu at a Chinese restaurant--if we do not have all of its protections, then we have none.

[nikos1121]

" “It weakens, perhaps destroys, much of the practical value of the Constitution’s knock-and-announce protection,” Justice Stephen Breyer wrote..."

Thank God our troops didn't use this fuzzy headed logic before dropping two bombs on Zarqawi... on the other hand...I recogonize that it would have been polite and perhaps proper ettiquette for them to knock on his door once they found him in the rubble.

[Sandy]

Wow, I looked and just can't seem to find the phrase "knock and announce" in the Fourth Amendment.

Wilson v Arkansas

[Publius Valerius]

Well, smart guy, the knock and announce rule goes back (at least!) to 1603--long before the U.S. Constitution was a twinkle in anyone's eye. Case after case after case in England required officers or sheriffs to "knock and announce," and it was a clear feature of the common law LONG before the formation of this country.

Of course, after the revolution (and after every state adopted the English common law), a number of states even saw the need to write statutes that authorized the breaking of a door if entry was refused--such was STRONG presumption against entry without announcement.

Maybe the phrase "knock and announce" isn't in the text of the Fourth Amendment because the Founders were well acquainted with the common law and knew method of entry into a dwelling was part of the "reasonableness" of a search or seizure? Perhaps, since it had been the common law of England (and the States) for the past 200 years, the Founders assumed that such a notion would be incorporated into the Fourth Amendment.

It's worth noting that every single member of the Supreme Court agrees that the "knock and announce" requirement is a requirement of the Fourth Amendment, and today's holding DOES NOT CHANGE THAT. Scalia acknowledges that a failure of police to knock and announce IS a Fourth Amendment violation--he merely states that exclusion is not the proper remedy. No one--no one--claims that a failure to knock and announce is not a Fourth Amendment violation. Shoot, even the State conceded there was a Fourth Amendment violation in this case.

I'm not Justice Breyer, but this answers your question.