No, ahh .. to me it looks like decided case law:
The Supreme Court has held the Fourth Amendment does not require law enforcement to give immediate notice of the execution of a search warrant. The Supreme Court emphasized "that covert entries are constitutional in some circumstances, at least if they are made pursuant to a warrant.? In fact, the Court stated that an argument to the contrary was "frivolous.? Dalia v. U.S., 441 U.S. 238 (1979)You guys REALLY need to at least BROWSE what I post or get *flattened* in the 'cross' (literally: cross examination) during Q and A!
It's like saying that the rainfall in Southern California is the same as the rainfall in South Florida, just because it rains in both areas.
There was some "rainfall" [delayed-notification warrants] before the Patriot Act; the ACLU contents that the "rainfall" has increased after the Patriot Act and will continue to increase.
By Ashcroft claiming that it "rains" in both Southern California and South Florida, he is fogging the issue. He needs to provide statistics showing the number of delayed-notification of search warrants before PA-1 and after PA-1, and the "crimes" involved in those delayed-notification warrants.
Then after an unbiased party analyzes the data and publishes the results, I will decide whether there is a sea change in the way that search warrants are being used in this country after PA-1
Was there any special court approval required for a covert no-notification entry, beyond that required for a normal searh, as is is supposed to be the case for a no-knock raid? Has the requirement been changed or modified?
Also, has the court said anything regarding cases where a "search" operation involves planting something [e.g. a "bug" or other object]?