MA: No-knock was properly permitted in advance by court based on defendant’s drug trafficking record, prior weapons arrests, and pit bull

Knock and announce was excused in advance by the magistrate based on the defendant’s running a drug trafficking operation from his house, 25 prior drug arrests, multiple prior weapons arrests, and possession of a pit bull. The officer’s expertise in these matters should also have been credited. The trial court was hypertechnical in analyzing the affidavit and suppressing. Because the no-knock was properly permitted, the court does not address whether Hudson should apply. Commonwealth v. Santiago, 452 Mass. 573, 896 N.E.2d 622 (2008).*

A house was under surveillance and defendant and another came out and got in a car. The car had expired tags, however. Before the defendant was asked for ID, the defendant fled. While the officer did not have cause for the initial stop, the defendant’s flight gave cause for the stop. State v. Washington, 193 N.C. App. 670, 668 S.E.2d 622 (2008).*

Defendant was stopped for a window tint violation, and he was acting suspicious, so the officer asked for and was denied consent. Before the warning ticket could be written, another officer with a drug dog arrived and walked around the car and alerted. The stop was not lengthened, and it was not unreasonable. King v. State, 295 Ga. App. 125, 671 S.E.2d 198 (2008).*