The potential for violence/flight/destruction of evidence is the reason for the issuance of no-knock warrants. Under Wilson v Arkansas, officers executing a warrant were permitted to enter without having to knock and announce if they established "the reasonableness of an unannounced entry", which meant convincing the judge that there was reason to break in without warning.
My issue with this ruling is that while it does not make the knock and announce rule invalid, it effectively removes any remedy for violations of the rule by ruling that the exclusionary rule doesn't apply. "You can't do it, but there's no real penalty if you do." While I understand their desire for caution when extending the impact of the exclusionary rule, I would have preferred that the court replace the exclusionary rule with another form of remedy.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-06-16 20:08 (UTC)My issue with this ruling is that while it does not make the knock and announce rule invalid, it effectively removes any remedy for violations of the rule by ruling that the exclusionary rule doesn't apply. "You can't do it, but there's no real penalty if you do." While I understand their desire for caution when extending the impact of the exclusionary rule, I would have preferred that the court replace the exclusionary rule with another form of remedy.