The police had a search warrant (not a no-knock). Instead of knocking, announcing, and waiting "20-30" seconds, the police in this particular case announced, waited 3-5 seconds, then entered.
Regardless, Justiceforall76's statement is correct. The government admitted the illegality of the search.
"Knock and announce" is the court's interpretation of "reasonable". Here I thought you were saying it was part of the 4th amendment, and I couldn't find it.
What? Suddenly you don't think the Supreme Court is infallible? I'm going to remember this post the next time the subject of interstate commerce comes up.
Well, if that "knock and announce" interpretation from 10 years ago is interpreted today as "announce only", then certainly you have no problem with that, do you? That was basically the ruling.
No it wasn't. Where did you get that? The ruling had nothing to do with whether or not the search was legal or illegal. The government conceded that the search was illegal. The courts decision concerned remedy only.
They had a valid warrant, they announced, they waited, but they forgot to knock. So, yeah, the search was "illegal".
But there's no punishment. If they did this exact same thing tomorrow, there'd be no punishment. So, what's the difference between that and no longer making knocking a requirement? Which is basically the point I was trying to make.
Oh, Scalia did say the resident would have recourse IF a) someone was hurt because of this "illegal" entry, b) some property damage was done because of this "illegal" entry, and/or c) the resident's privacy or dignity was violated by this "illegal" entry. Nonoe of which, by the way, happened in this particular case.
So, it's not a blank check. Scalia is applying the intent of the knock and announce provision and limiting the punishment to the actual damage done.