Maybe a little off topic here but the point made above is where I keep being led with regard to no-know warrants. In today's world with the level of technology and surveillance techniques that are afforded to law enforcement, I think that there needs to be a complete overhaul of the no-knock warrant approval process.
In many cases where we have seen evidence of these go wrong, it appears to me that simply slowing the roll of law enforcement and using no-knock warrants only where innocent life is in immediate peril would be prudent.
I'm no lawdog and don't know how you revamp the system, but it would appear that a specially appointed panel or overseer should be the go/no go decision as to whether a no-know warrant (and the likely use of force that follows) is justified. Their task would be to obviously determine whether a warrant is justified, but more importantly whether it meets the threshold of meriting a violent entry.
To me, simple drug crimes like this one do not meet the threshold of being necessary to risk the lives of all involved; LEO, suspects, and innocents alike.
Ted Bundy has 5 kids locked in his basement and is torturing them - Go. Joe Smith is moving meth out of an apartment and has been doing so for years - let's wait until he comes outside and makes a run to HEB.
These no-knock warrants amplify the warrior mentality, create the us against them mindset, and don't seems to SERVE the greater good in many cases - when weighing the risk vs. reward.