No, that’s not what I’m asking.
What I am asking is “would it be reasonable if all warrants were no-knock warrants?”
I am NOT saying that there should be, as you have said, some separate qualification/application process to GET a no-knock warrant. Nor am I addressing whether or not the police can ‘upgrade’ a warrant to no-knock.
No one is advocating that the police use no-knock warrants whenever they feel like it, without oversight, without parameters. In fact, even I said that no-knock warrants should be strictly controlled, and are probably over-used, and that this should be reigned in.
However, some people here, and you seem to be among their ranks, want to forbid ALL no knock warrants, when the law clearly allows for them.
Moreover, even you would probably allow for them in certain circumstances as well. (No one is truly an absolutist). We already used the terrorist example. We could use another, such as, what if a person were holding your children hostage, would you require that the police knock and announce their presence before making entry into the suspect's home?
Here's another. What if a suspect were in possession of a nuclear device, and had the means to set it off. Assume for the purposes of this question that the suspect can be stopped if the officers make an unannounced entry, but if the police knock and announce, the suspect will have the time to set off the device. How much of an absolutist are you? Should the police knock and announce or not?
I suspect that even you would admit that a no-knock entry would not only be reasonable, but absolutely necessary in both circumstances, thus, clearly, no-knock entries ARE permissible in some circumstances, even in your theoretical libertine world. The question then becomes a line drawing exercise.
Who draws that line?