I agree he probably would head to trial, but I don't know that the jury would necessarily conclude that he should have had a reasonable expectation that the surprise entry into his house was anything other than LE executing a search warrant. I wouldn't. You may or may not remember the house on Hamilton in downtown Indy where SEVEN people were murdered, including three or four children. The surprise entry into that home in the early hours of the morning were criminals intent on taking what wasn't theirs because it was known/suspected that at least one of the occupants of the house had cash/drugs in his possession. I would say that the fella in this story would probably be more apt to think someone of a more criminal nature was coming in rather than assume LE was there to make a bust. The article nailed it: no need for the no-knock. Plenty of other chances to take him without instigating a scenario where he felt threatened and had to make a split second decision. It's not like he was going to flush his plants down the loo, was he?
That's a matter of debate.
I'd be more interested in asking whether the CI's information was all that was used to seek the warrant. Did they have any police work to back up the information, or was this just a case a "he said/issue the warrant?"
