with the requirements of the “knock and announce” rule “to prevent persons within from escaping or destroying evidence.” Heaton v. Commonwealth, 215 Va. 137, 138, 207 S.E.2d 829, 830 (1974). The knock and announce rule “should be evaluated in the light of modern technology and the nature of illegal drug traffic in which small, easily disposable quantities of drugs can yield large profits.” Johnson, 213 Va. at 105, 189 S.E.2d at 680. Both the Supreme Court and this Court have upheld the constitutionality of unannounced entries when necessary to prevent the destruction of illegal narcotics. Id., at 105-06, 189 S.E.2d at 680-81; Commonwealth v. Woody, 13 Va.App. 168, 171, 409 S.E.2d 170, 172 (1991); see also Wilson v. Arkansas, — U.S. -, -, 115 S.Ct. 1914, 1919, 131 L.Ed.2d 976 (1995) (<HOLDING>). In these cases, the courts have attempted to
holding that it may not recognizing that docket entries form no part of the record that may be considered on appeal because they are inherently unreliable holding that defective allegations of citizenship may be amended to establish diversity jurisdiction holding that while unannounced entries may be constitutionally defective in certain situations law enforcement interests may also establish the reasonableness of an unannounced entry recognizing that in certain circumstances inquiry notice may be determined as a matter of law