Replies

The case you cited earlier wasn't even about a no-knock warrant. Now who is the liar? Apparently reading comprehension is not your friend. The entire issue in Wilson v. Arkansas was whether entry without knocking an announcing (no-knock) was Constitutional. Justice Thomas outlined that knocking and announcing is indeed a Constitutional and Common Law requirement, BUT that in certain limited circumstances, law enforcement may be able to justify such an entry. Read the dicta in the second to the last paragraph along with the first line in the last paragraph. Two years later, the Court specifically reaffirmed the dicta: "In order to justify a "no knock" entry, the police must have a reasonable suspicion that knocking and announcing their presence, under the particular circumstances, would be dangerous or futile, or that it would inhibit the effective investigation of the crime by, for example, allowing the destruction of evidence." So apparently, either you are still lying, or just too stupid to read properly. Wilson v. Arkansas established that no-knock entries are presumptively unreasonable, except in certain circumstances. Justice Thomas conducted a historical analysis and explained why the knock and announce requirement is so important, and he also explained why in certain limited situations, it may be dispensed with. You failed again.