The 4rh Amendment to the Constitution clearly states that “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses…shall not be violated.” Yet, routinely these very rights are violated, through the extensive usage via law enforcement of the no-knock rule, supposedly done under only the most exigent circumstances, which necessitates such. While there are probably exigent circumstances from time to time that would necessitate a no-knock raid, the fact of the matter is that this should be something that is seldom, if ever, called upon, but instead we find that exceptions to the 4th Amendment are made all the time, of which, the true necessity of this action being taken is highly questionable, thus making far too many Americans vulnerable to the adverse effects of no-knock raids, which include their very lives being taken away, by such an action.
Look, in a truly free country, that embraces liberty, no-knock rules would simply not exist, because if a man’s house is not truly a sanctuary, and a man’s possessions are subject to be taken away from them, without any fair recourse, than those that live under such governance aren’t really free, but actually live under a construct that at any given time, their home, their person, and their possessions could be subject to the violent taking away by governmental agents, which is the mark of a totalitarian state and not of a republic or a democracy.
The very reason why there is a 4th Amendment is because human beings should be able to utilize their place of residence as a safe sanctuary, to be entered upon only by government agents with an appropriate warrant, stating the specific place to be searched, and things to be seized, supported by probable cause, of which, even that probable cause should be called into question, when whatever what was supposed to be seized or found, is not actually even there, at all. In other words, probable cause should be held to a very high standard, of which statistics should be kept as to how often the probable cause results in consistently finding what is alleged to have been there, or not.
While there are plenty of people who are absolutely fine with no-knock rules, it has to be noted that many of those people are the very same who need not worry about such personally affecting them, which basically represents that the policing arm of the state, as exercised, favors some at the expense of the many. Indeed, whenever there is supposed criminal activity that has occurred at a certain house, or possessions are alleged to be within a given house that are illegal in their substance, it would seem that the person(s) so residing in that house, are pretty much trapped, because eventually they will have to leave to go take care of this or that, of which, this would thereby permit the police to stop them and to question them, and/or an appropriate search warrant will have been issued to do such. Instead, with the no-knock rule, there seems to be the belief that the no-knock rule is necessary because of exigent circumstances, loosely defined, of which the reality is that this is just a pretext to invade citizens’ homes and to impress upon the general public that inconvenient Constitutional rights and Amendments, be damned.