[Sandy]

where is the "knock and announce" protection in the Constitution? Something the SCOTUS invented along the way?

It's an ancient common law principle, predating the 4th Amendment by centuries. Its purpose is to protect the of the homeowner/occupant's property (generally the front door), dignity (giving him time to get un-naked, for instance), and life (eg, so he doesn't get killed while trying to defend himself against unknown intruders).

I guess they've had to decide what is "unreasonable."

Not in this case, but yes, the knock and announce rule is considered to be part of the 4th Amendment's reasonableness requirement (Wilson v Arkansas, 1995). In the present case, there was no question that the 4th Amendment was violated; the state conceded as much. The question was whether evidence suppression is a required remedy for violations of the knock and announce rule. The Court said not necessarily and went with a costs/benefits analysis.

[NinoFan]

The question was whether evidence suppression is a required remedy for violations of the knock and announce rule. The Court said not necessarily and went with a costs/benefits analysis.

No, it didn't say not necessarily, it said that no it is not a required remedy. You are correct that it used a costs/benefits analysis, but that's as much O'Connor-esque reasoning as you'll find in the opinion. . The Court gave a clear answer on the question of the exclusionary rule's applicability to otherwise legal searches conducted in violation of the no-knock rule. The majority opinion is airtight, which is probably why Breyer isn't very happy in his dissent. Even Justice Kennedy, not an originalist by any means, states in his concurrence that in the case of even massive and routine violations of the no-knock rule there is still not the required causal relationship to justify requiring the exclusionary rule.

[Huck]

Thanks Sandy. You should start charging a consulting fee using pay pal or something. Appreciate it as always.