As posted in the lead post here, and as I found in several newspaper reports:
Knocking not needed before police search with warrant.
The Court did not say that police are not required to "serve the warrant" by knocking, announcing their identity, etc. The opinion did, in fact, find that the police violated the rule enunciated by prior courts, and - in effect - upheld the requirement that the police must "knock before entering."
What the Court did say was that even though the police violated the law in obtaining the evidence used to obtain a conviction, the "mere fact" that the evidence (technically????) was illegally obtained does not prevent it being used as evidence in the trial.
So we now have a Court that believes that "legal vs illegal" is a mere technicality. If the dissenting opinion is given credibility, we also now have a Court that feels free to render opinions without basis either in law enacted by the legislature, and without basis in prior precedent established by the Courts, and without basis in Common Law.
Obviously those who complained about "Activist Judges" just meant "Activist on the wrong side." (?)
The very real bucket of worms opened here is that entering a person's home without announcement and identification and immediate presenting of evidence of a warrant opens the plausibility of a plea of self defense against "unknown persons entering by force." This decision may kill a lot of cops, if the police don't understand what it really means - or may leave citizens much more vulnerable to forcible entry by criminals using police disguise, as is seemingly a rather big problem in some places.