Appeals court OKs no-knock warrant as perfectly appropriate

[Steve Schear]

>We have recognized that, HN6[]under appropriate exigent circumstances, 
>strict compliance with the knock and announce requirement may be excused. 
>United States v. Grogins, 163 F.3d 795, 797 (4th Cir. 1998) (holding 
>no-knock entry justified where officers had reasonable suspicion that 
>entering drug "stash house" would be dangerous and drug dealer frequenting 
>house could not be found elsewhere). When the authorities "have a 
>reasonable suspicion that knocking and announcing their presence ...would 
>be dangerous or futile, or that it would inhibit the effective 
>investigation of []crime by, for example, allowing the destruction of the 
>evidence," an entry without knocking [*13]  is justified. Richards, 520 
>U.S. at 394; see also United States v. Ramirez, 523 U.S. 65, 140 L. Ed. 2d 
>191, 118 S. Ct. 992 (1998) (upholding no-knock entry where suspect had 
>violent past, access to weapons, and vowed not to do "federal time").

So, how does a non-criminal citizen protect themselves against armed home 
invaders who break down their front door or crash through a window to gain 
entry?  Are citizens liable for injuries and deaths to law enforcement 
personnel who use such unannounced methods (esp. in the early morning hours)?

I know that there have been cases which determined that its illegal to use 
an indiscriminate weapon (e.g., a shotgun tied to a door) to deter such 
entries, but what about a discriminate, automated, weapon system?  By 
coupling night vision optics and a video pickup, image recognition 
software, a robotic gimbal and an semi-automatic firearm, such a system 
could discriminate forced entry situations from more normal entry means, 
target intruders and initiate deterrence. What then?

steve