I don't have a problem with that. That's a law enforcement procedure. Or it could be an actual law passed by the state legislature. I just resent the USSC making it a constitutional requirement binding on the states.
Plus, it's a lame argument to say that the 4th amendment to the U.S. Constitution considers knocking on the door to be an actual part of the search itself. Wouldn't it also be "reasonable" that the cops be in uniform to assure identification? That they use a marked patrol car? That they provide a phone number allowing the resident to verify the warrant with the judge prior to entry? Sounds reasonable to me. Should all these decisions be made by the U.S. Supreme Court?
Actually, the police tend to justify no-knocks saying that they are safer. I disagree, but that's what they will tell you.
Plus, it's a lame argument to say that the 4th amendment to the U.S. Constitution considers knocking on the door to be an actual part of the search itself.
The court gave its supporting arguments for the knock and announce requirement in Wilson v. Arkansas. It said, in a unanimous decision, that they gave the term reasonable the meaning given to it by the founders. Do you have evidence that this was not part of the intended definition?
Wouldn't it also be "reasonable" that the cops be in uniform to assure identification? That they use a marked patrol car? That they provide a phone number allowing the resident to verify the warrant with the judge prior to entry?
While some of these are probably good ideas, given that criminals have been known to pose as police in order to gain entry into a home, the "Castle doctrine" does not require any of them to my knowledge.
Should all these decisions be made by the U.S. Supreme Court?
Given that they all involve interpretation of the Constitution, sure. Why not?
I am really enjoying your posts on this thread. Thank you for injecting some well thought out facts to some who need to get a grip.