Those of you arguing that "knock and announce" is not spelled out in the Constitution are missing the whole point.
The Bill of Rights is not an exhaustive list of all the rights the people enjoy. Indeed, many founders objected to the BOR precisely because some individuals would read it as exhaustive.
The knock and announce requirement was well enshrined in British law, Colonial American law, and then United States law. It was common understanding to our founders, so they did not need to include it by name in the BOR.
The founders also did not enshrine "guilty until proven innocent" in the Constitution, but how many of you would also want to ditch that?
Shame on the intellectually fradulent "orginalists" on the court for not going back to the framers of the Constitution for guidance. If they had, this decision would have been 9-0 against no-knock warrants.
ooops. That should read innocent until proven guilty, obviously....
I'm just joining this discussion, but I honestly see both sides. The question I have is, given the only reason I've heard FOR no-knocks, that the criminal may flush drugs down the toilet, how hard would it be for cops to think about that before they knock by putting a trap on the plumbing?