According to quite a number of threads on other firearms boards, no-knock raids are becoming a bit of a problem in general. Whether this is because of the publicity generated on the net, or whatever, I think the discussion generated elsewhere on the www is not "paranoia."
The general tone of the comments seem to be that there are too many mistaken addresses, too many compliant judges willing to rubber-stamp flimsy affidavits as to the probable cause for the searches, and too many military-style tactics and "toys" involved in these "dynamic entries."
The main concern as far as gun owners are concerned, is the possibility of armed resistance to what the gun owner legitimately perceives, in the heat of the moment, as a home invasion, which themselves are apparently becoming more common.* From what I read, the Officers have been trained to start shooting at any call of "Gun!" by any of the officers involved.
Now you must understand that I have done no formal research on the matter, and I am not paranoid, but the increasing number of reports on dynamic-entries-gone-bad makes me a bit "suspicionoid," if I can coin a new term.
Many of the comments I read make the point that if a suspected crimedoer is being arrested, why not arrest him on the street, based on the evidence at hand or evidence which could be obtained by normal old-fashioned police techniques, even though the basis of the no-knock raid is that "evidence" might be flushed down the toilet or otherwise destroyed.
Call it paranoia (a cheap way of demeaning someone's position) or perhaps my newly-coined term "suspicionoia," I personally am becoming more than a little concerned with what I see as a growing abuse of the U.S. Fourth Amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.**
Three of the big problems I see here are the ever-narrowing definition of "unreasonable," the ever-broadening interpretation of "probable cause," and (if I may be facetious) the fact that the "Oath or affirmation" may merely be that the police officer swears that "a little birdie told me" without checking the truthfulness and reliability of the "little birdie" involved.
I close with a quote regarding searches and seizures by William Pitt in Parliament in
1763The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the force of the crown. It may be frail--its roof may shake--the wind may blow through it --the storm may enter, the rain may enter --but the King of England cannot enter --all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement.
That was 1763, remember.
Food for thought, eh?
Terry, 230RN
* At least here on the mainland, where unlawful immigration by the criminal element of other countries is probably more of a problem than in your state.
** I do not know what the Hawaiian constitution says in this regard.