The ammendment is supposed to protect the rights of the people, not to the rights of the government. Judiciary approval is an important element of the fourth ammendment. However, more important is the first part of the ammendment that offers the purpose of the ammendment itself - that is "the right of the people to be secure in the persons, houses, papers, and effects..."
The practice of "no-knock" raids places in grave peril this right and the people subject to its abuse. The sad fact of the matter is that the police have used this tactic irresponsibly, even to the extent to where they have inflicted death and injury upon innocent and hapless people who have committed no crimes. In some cases this is because the police do not even have the right address. In other cases it is the actions of overzealous drug agents that turn lethal (e.g., the 11 year-old shot in the back and killed in botched drug raid in Modesto, CA in Sept. 2000 - no drugs found in the house, btw). This, apparently, is the price we pay for inane and poorly thought-out policies like "zero-tolerance." Even guilty people do not deserve to be shot and killed for such crimes as possession of drugs. If the government wants to kill people for capital offenses, they should make the effort to conduct a trial, convict and sentence defendants according to the law.
You apparently think the no-knock practice is acceptable because it prevents people from flushing their stash. I argue that if someone has so little contraband that they can literally flush it down the toilet to avoid detection, then it is not worth the effort of the cops to conduct the raid in the first place. I think the rationale the judge in the above article uses to dismiss the "smell test" supports this view.
The list of victims of "no-knock" raids is getting longer by the day. These deaths are the ultimate infringement of rights that the fourth ammendment is supposed to protect. Law enforcement needs to come up with better and safer methods of executing searches and warrants for arrests (like in Waco, they could have picked up Koresh when he was in town - but the BATF had to "show its muscle", or like how pointing guns at Elian Gonzales' family on Easter morning could and should have been avoided). The paramilitarization of our police forces is not indicative of a free society.
How about returning to the old-fashioned way of having cops just knock on the door and announce themselves and their intent? "Open up, it's the police...we have a warrant..." -- remember Joe Friday on Dragnet, or Pete and Jim on Adam 12? Why not serve people with search and arrest warrants as they enter or exit the premises? Is it not a crime for people to fail to comply with legal searches? Let judges and juries know, when and if a case goes to trial, that the defendant was uncooperative with respect to the issue of the warrant (this implies guilt as does flight). How about any alternative to the reliance upon and escalation of violence on the part of the government?
Save the no-knock type raids for the Islamist terrorists and other suspects known to be violent and worthy of the lethal force paramilitary assualt tactics represent.
I would like to express my appreciation for your post. It was well written and I believe, helped many of us with a fundamental understanding of the fourth amendment.
Perhaps the stash flushing example summed it up. I consider myself to be a reasonable, if not, based on taxes paid, upstanding citizen. I generally associate with less nefarious characters. Having said that, I have noticed over the past years the increasing fear, disdain and outright hatred for our various law enforcement agencies. As we freepers continually assail societies downward spiral, perhaps part of the problem is the basic idea that the constitution and bill of rights are there for our benefit, not the government enforcement agencies.
I hope that last quip doesn't get my a$$ in a sling.
As a libertarian who'd legalize narcotics anyway, I agree that the toilet-flushing of drugs exception to a knock requirement should not be allowed. And that would remove most such cases. However, the problem I have with the way drug busts are performed is precisely because I do not think the War on Drugs is a good idea, because selling, say Cocaine to willing buyers is not in the same league with stealing from, attacking or otherwise victimizing people.
But in the parallel case, where evidence in a serious case is apt to be destroyed unless a no-knock entry is effected, and where the judge is convinced of this, the judge should be explicitly empowered to do it.
For example, if a Mohamed Atta associate is being searched, and the key evidence is in a Palm Pilot he can smash at a moment's notice, and the judge is convinced of this, shouldn't a no-knock raid be permitted? If you are willing to accept such a possibility in a crime you see as serious enough, then it's inevitable that the flush-drugs scenario will also see no-knock raids. This is because the federal government takes drug traficking at least as seriously as it takes murder. That value judgement is the problem, not the possibility of a no-knock raid.
Finally, if you do not allow the possibility of a no-knock raid in the Mohamed Atta-type case above, it will end up happening anyway. Police will play up fears of being shot at and get their no-knock warrant. Or they will bust in and say they knocked, or they'll "knock" really softly. And under the circumstances, I wouldn't blame them. But such a system, where police will inevitably have a "code" of ignoring the warrant laws, would be far more dangerous than one where a judge can approve such a warrant.