[driftdiver]

“Two sides to every story, and we are only hearing the carefully crafted side that this woman’s attorney is allowing her to say; one that is crafted to illicit an emotional response that benefits the attorney.”

Sure, that means you think she did something wrong that led to a warrantless no-knock raid.

[Boogieman]

Of course she did something wrong, since we have so many laws that everyone commits a felony by lunchtime, on average. The relevant question is did she do what was stated by the LE officers as the basis for their warrant, which of course she did not, since the warrant wasn't even in her name.

[Molon Labbie]

What everyone is assuming is that it was a SEARCH warrant when it almost certainly an ARREST warrant for the lady she said no longer lived there. That little tidbit is left out by the attorney, intentionally.

Since the homeowner was not the person the warrant was for, no, she would not get a copy of the warrant. So, thus without further information it would seem to be “warrantless.”

Courts make a serious effort to serve warrants at the last known address.

Again, the story does not give the other side of the story with important details such as whether any surveillance was done on the address that would support the courts decision to serve said warrant there. Or the veracity of the person giving the statement to the press.

DD, the woman admits that the police knocked. So much for the no-knock raid argument.