The new Alito Supreme Court won't disallow evidence from a no-knock raid (with a warrant). 5-4 decision in Hudson v. Michigan, with Alito on the no-knock, no-problem side.
Orin Kerr's guide through the thickets of the opinion and its meaning. He finds some ambiguity:
At least based on my initial read of Hudson v. Michigan, it seems to me that the legal rule announced by the Court's majority opinion could be either of these two rules:
1) Violations of the knock-and-announce rule do not lead to automatic exclusion of evidence obtained, although they may still be relevant to suppression in some contexts because they alter the constitutional reasonableness of the search.
2) Violations of the rule must be enforced throught civil suits, not throught the exclusionary remedy. Violations of the knock-and-announce rule are completely irrelevant when a defendant seeks suppression of the evidence.
Reading over the majority opinion, I see hints of (1) and hints of (2), although it's not clear to me which is the Court's holding. Am I missing something, or does the Court's opinion leave that important question unclear?