Capt., analytically speaking, based on news of increasing drug activity and the documented increase in street violence, would you agree that the increase in no knock warrants may bee a result of the times? No just the need of jack booted thugs to violate rights? With that said, a no knock warrant should, by policy and law, require extensive research, surveillance, and reliability. And the primary purpose should be for the safety of the officers and not the prevention of the destruction of evidence.
Personally, I think the no knock warrant, in many cases, is easier for the department to execute, so they use it whenever they can find a way to justify it. I agree that it should be used for LEO protection only when there is no other way to execute the warrant safely. I don't think its the proliferation of drugs as much as it is the want by the government to eradicate drugs through their so called 'war on drugs.' When you declare a 'war on drugs,' I guess you give the impression that wartime tactics are a fact of life.
One solution might be to require departments to get the judge to sign off on the no knock raid when the warrant is applied for, so the department would have to justify the reasoning behind the use of the tactic.
As for seized property, Im all for giving it to the departments. I don't see how it can breed corruption, corrupt officers will 'skim' the seized property regardless. Im all of anything to lower my tax burden and shift it to criminal enterprises 