That's how the system works. I would suggest that anyone going to the dance would be wise to learn something about the steps. Here the key word is "Mandamus" and this is what Wikipedia has to say on the subject.
"A writ of mandamus or simply mandamus, which means "we command" in Latin, is the name of one of the prerogative writs in the common law, and is issued by a superior court (appellate court) to compel a lower court or a government officer to perform mandatory or purely ministerial duties correctly."
"Mandamus is a judicial remedy which is in the form of an order from a superior court to any government, subordinate court, corporation or public authority to do or forbear from doing some specific act which that body is obliged under law to do or refrain from doing, as the case may be, and which is in the nature of public duty and in certain cases of a statutory duty. It cannot be issued to compel an authority to do something against statutory provision".
"Mandamus may be a command to do something or not to do a particular thing. Mandamus is supplemented by legal rights. It must be a judicially enforceable and legally protected right before one suffering a grievance can ask for a mandamus. A person can be said to be aggrieved only when he is denied a legal right by someone who has a legal duty to do something and abstains from doing it."
Note that there are restrictions to when this writ is applicable
You must first have a real grievance and the cure must be one where the grievance will be extinguished when the authorities perform their duties according to law.
This is where you will find what the US Department of Justice has to say about it in their Civil Resources Manual.
How does this apply to us?
First we need to find out if there are any laws that prohibit these no knock raids. If they are not prohibited entirely but are allowed under certain circumstances, find out what those circumstances are. When you find circumstances which are repugnant to the citizens of the community, form a committee and draft the legislation which will aleviate the objections. Once proper rules are in place, the police will be back in pandoras box and the citizens will again be free from terror.
That's how the system works. I would suggest that anyone going to the dance would be wise to learn something about the steps. Here the key word is "Mandamus" and this is what Wikipedia has to say on the subject.
I think you missed my point. If the government were to allow juries to do their job, they would do a better job of holding the government's "searches" in check than any judge could possibly do.
If a judge writes rules saying what searches are reasonable, such rules are almost going to be written so that while most prohibited searches would be unreasonable, not all unreasonable searches would be prohibited. It's not possible for a judge to anticipate all the circumstances that may contribute to a particular search being reasonable or unreasonable. For a judge to declare that all searches meeting certain criteria are allowable is for the judge to make factual determinations relative to future cases before those cases are heard. Such a notion is preposterous.
To be sure, it's probably good for judges to put some absolute limits on what searches are reasonable, but judges should only be allowed to decide that certain searches may be reasonable; it should be up to a jury to determine definitively whether any particular search was reasonable, given the facts of that particular case.
To be sure, leaving matters up to juries would make such issues be something of a crap-shoot, but it would be an improvement over the present situation. Presently, cops are inclined to push the boundaries of what judges will allow; if juries were allowed to perform their legitimate duty, cops would be far less inclined. Among other things, if cops' tactics escalated to the point that jurors felt any personal fear of such tactics landing on them, that would reduce jurors' tolerance for such tactics even further.