able to consider the impact of t escribing Wilson as concluding that knock-and-announce rule is "a command of the Fourth Amendment"). 14 . Id. at --, 126 S.Ct. at 2165. 15 . Id. at --, 126 S.Ct. at 2165. In addition, this Court notes that the knock-and-announce requirement helps minimize the potentially harmful and even fatal consequences that can result when officers executing a search warrant serve it on the wrong residence. 16 . Id. The Court concluded, "Since the interests that were violated in this case have nothing to do with the seizure of the evidence, the exclusionary rule is inapplicable." Id. (emphasis in original). 17 . Id. at --, 126 S.Ct. at 2165-68. 18 . Id. at --, 126 S.Ct. at 2168 (referring to Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 655, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 1691, 6 LEd.2d 1081 (1961) (<HOLDING>)). 19 . It should be noted that this Court has
holding that forfeiture statute is subject to the fourth amendments prohibitions against unreasonable searches and seizures holding all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the constitution is by that same authority inadmissible in a state court holding that direct and indirect evidence from unlawful searches is inadmissible holding that evidence obtained by improper search or seizure is inadmissible holding that evidence obtained through unconstitutional searches and seizures is inadmissible in state court