<One officer, according to the transcript, explained that the “protocol on high-risk search warrants is no-knock — it’s for officer safety.”> But that's not wh

<One officer, according to the transcript, explained that the “protocol on high-risk search warrants is no-knock — it’s for officer safety.”> But that's not what no-knock warrants are FOR. The only legal reason that the no-knock warrant was considered allowable under the 4th Amendment was for cases where evidence was at risk of immediate destruction upon announcement of search by the officers; for example, small amounts of drugs that could be flushed or burned, or bookmaking operations with paper records subject to immediate destruction by fire or solvent. They print the warrant request in the Guy case. It has absolutely no mention of any evidence at risk of immediate destruction.