[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.

[TChris]

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.

Then, it's your position that every no-knock warrant is a blatant, judicially sanctioned violation of the Fourth Amendment?

[green iguana]

after every state adopted the English common law

49 of the states adopted English common law. Louisiana's Constitution is based on codified, or Roman law (sometimes erroneously called French law.)

[Republican Wildcat]

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.

Perhaps before getting arrogant you should learn to read. Breyer did not reference common law - he said it was IN the Constitution - and the person you are insulting directly quoted him!