No-knock provision in this search warrant was supported only by generalizations about drug dealers, and the accused here was only suspected of being a user. Entry was unreasonable. State v. Cash, 316 Ga. App. 324, 728 S.E.2d 918 (2012):<\/p>\n
The affidavit and evidence presented in this case are remarkably similar to that presented in our recent decision in Barnett, supra, 314 Ga. App. at 17-20, where we held that the blanket provisions based on the agent’s generalized experience in drug investigations were insufficient to justify a \u201cno-knock\u201d provision in a search warrant. Here, as in Barnett, the affidavit requested a \u201cno-knock\u201d search warrant based upon the agent’s general experience that drug evidence can be easily destroyed and that drug suspects commonly possess firearms. See Barnett, supra, 314 Ga. App. at 19. While the affidavit stated that the drug suspect had been in the military and likely had \u201cknowledge\u201d regarding firearms, there was no indication that the drug suspect or any occupant of the residence possessed a firearm. The affidavit also failed to set forth any information indicating that the drug suspect had packaged or located the drugs in the residence for quick disposal. In sum, the affidavit and evidence in this case failed to present any particular facts and circumstances justifying a \u201cno-knock\u201d provision, and instead, was based entirely upon generalizations. Consequently, the \u201cno-knock\u201d provision was invalid, which rendered the execution of the warrant without knocking and announcing illegal and supported the trial court’s decision granting the motion to suppress. See Barnett, supra, 314 Ga. App. at 20; Poole, supra, 266 Ga. App. at 114-119 (1).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading