Replies

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.