I have said that I agree with the use of no-knock warrants when there is a good reason for them (i.e. the suspect has a history of violent crime, is known to possess firearms, etc).
Do you really want me to quote-mine all the times where you said you believe that no-knock warrants are inherently unconstitutional?
When a judge signs a warrant authorizing a search, that search can be carried out in a number of ways. It can be carried out with a knock on the front door and a contingent of police officers who then enter the premises in a nonviolent manner,
Yes, it can. And the manner of entry is often done according to a risk assessment. Guess what? "Drugs" tend to make the risk level go through the roof, much moreso than searching for bank records at an accountant's office.
or it can be carried out by a team in riot gear that breaks down the front door with a battering ram
Riot gear would be very counterproductive executing a search warrant.
and uses military tactics to subdue everyone in the dwelling place before searching for whatever it is they're looking for.
New Evilbore drinking game! Take a shot every time Green Shinobi writes "military tactics" in a police thread! You'll be dead of alcohol poisoning before it hits page 3!
I think you have some long term memory issues, GS, because we thoroughly went over the topic of hard entries and securing buildings for officer safety reasons in the first round back in April. I suggest you go back and read up.
What Malek is saying is that the latter method is used in some cases where "exigent circumstances" are very loosely applied.
He also said that intent of the founding fathers is "unhelpful", so he's really agreeing more with me than you, I'd think.
Furthermore, no matter what "reasonable grounds" there are to believe that someone is committing a crime, he is still just a suspect until proven guilty in a court of law.
And how is that relevant to the subject of search warrants?
Poll
