You really can’t comprehend at all. The point Justice Thomas was making was the the common law and history required that one knock and announce. Hence failure to knock and announce is unreasonable UNLESS the police can justify the decision via exigent circumstances. You just can stop reading the opinion and cherry pick portions out that you like while ignoring the rest. The holding of the case is that no knocks aren’t permitted unless supported by exigent circumstances. If an officer has reasonable suspicion that knocking will expose someone to the risk of injury or death or that evidence will be destroyed, then exigent circumstances exist. Because the 4th amendment only prohibits UNREASONABLE searches and seizures, and because exigent circumstances make what would ordinarily be unreasonable reasonable, such warrants are permissible in very limited situations.
You want to rewrite the constitution to say something that it doesn’t. Then you cowardly sit back and throw around ad hominem attacks against anyone who dares to disagree with you. You seem to arrogantly believe that you know more than Justice Thomas, the Framers and the Supreme Court.
Why should your legal theory hold water? With logic and reason, and without using any fallacious reasoning, make your case. If you can’t then obviously you aren’t credible.
Exactly. In that case they failed on all counts. Justice Thomas failed. You fail!
“such warrants are permissible in very limited situations.”
Not that limited evidently.
3000 no knock warrants in 1981.....50,000 per year as of 2005.
The police will always invent some “exigent circumstances” to support the use of whatever tools they have at their disposal.