> While one should train for the worst possible scenarios one also has to be aware what to reasonably expect Sometimes (I'm actually going to say most of time)

> While one should train for the worst possible scenarios one also has to be aware what to reasonably expect Sometimes (I'm actually going to say most of time) giving the suspect warnings or time isn't a good idea. In the case of collecting evidence that is on computers, this evidence is easily destroyed if someone knows what they are doing and giving the suspect a warning could ultimately result in loss of justice. Therefore, coming in unexpectedly, and performing actions to make sure the suspect does not do anything until the evidence is collected makes sense. Yes, coming in with guns drawn is scary, etc. But would knocking on the door and asking for the computers have worked? It might eventually, after many opportunities for evidence destruction occurred... but which way has a higher chance of working? It's useful to note here that I think if you work for the state, you should be held to a higher standard--this is different than working at a private company and embezzlement, stealing, etc. If you have violated the trust of the citizens of Florida via doing something wrong at your state job, and a judge agrees there is enough probable cause that evidence is on your home computer, isn't better that a method of evidence collection is done that is swift and not likely to result in destruction of evidence? If someone more or less commits a crime against the state of Florida, isn't that more important than the fear/mental health of the individual suspect?