All I have to work with here are your (overbroad) title and the sketchy AP report. And your reference to Mapp.
But the news here seems to be the lack of a knock requirement, not the conduct of a search pursuant to warrant.
Do you really mean to say that there is NO exclusionary rule for no-knock searches?
No, my title isn't overbroad. The question involved in this case was whether evidence that was obtained via a questionable no-knock search, including if it was an improper no-knock search (in other words, non-emergency no-knock) must be excluded from trial. IOW, in legal speak, whether the exclusionary rule applies in the situation where there is a warrant, but the no-knock aspect of the searching was illegal. The Court said it did not apply. This is a major decision. I'm shocked we got it out of Kennedy.