Problem
Review Richards v. Wisconsin, 520 U.S. 385 (1997). This is the lead case in allowing Law Enforcement to execute "no-knock" warrants, pursuant to a reasonable suspicion standard. Note the emphasis added to the last paragraph in Section II of Richards. This paragraph purports to identify the privacy interests of homeowners in the context of no-knock entries as consistent with the interests inherent in (i) protective sweeps in homes where an individual has been arrested, and (ii) in the frisk portion of a Terry stop.
Note that Justice Stevens (the author of the Richards opinion) suggests that the privacy concerns of a person whose home has yet to be invaded by law enforcement, with no notice to the homeowner, as similar if not identical to those diminished privacy interests in other contexts; that is, the home invasion has already occurred (and the defendant already arrested) in the protective sweep, and the detention of the individual has already occurred in the Terry stop situation. While Stevens states that in the "no-knock" situation the homeowner's privacy interests are similarly diminished by the existence of a warrant, this says nothing about the impact of the execution of the warrant has on whatever privacy interests remain to the homeowner.
Richards set the groundwork for situations like Breonna Taylor's, who by all appearances was a de minimus, and likely totally innocent 3rd party in the investigation of a suspected drug dealer who admittedly was known to Ms. Taylor; the target had apparently resided with her for a short time in the several months prior to her death at the hands of law enforcement.
Think about the privacy interests we have in our homes. For a relatively concise discussion of the importance of the home in American jurisprudence see LANGE v. CALIFORNIA (2020). Clearly the right to be let alone from the government, especially in our homes, is "deeply rooted" in the history and traditions of our Constitution.
Is Stevens correct in holding that our privacy interests in our residence, after the issuance of a no-knock warrant, are consistent with the privacy interests we retain after the police are in the residence, in the context of a protective sweep? Same question, only consistent with the privacy interests we retain in our personal autonomy in the frisk aspect of a Terry stop? Is there a difference based on the status of the police intrusion? In other words, in the no-knock context, the citizen's interests are defined immediately prior to, or during the entry into the premises (i.e. the execution of the warrant), while in the protective sweep and the Terry frisk the defendant's privacy interests are already intruded upon.
You should be aware that several states have actually outlawed no knock warrants. You might consider whether this ban is legitimate, and if not, should limits be put in place on no-knock warrants?