Well, with all the legal immunizations on the LE side of this situation and little likelihood of that changing, i guess what we need is some oversight that could grade the need for a "no-knock"-type entry or similar tactics by comparing the risk to officers and the risk to citizens (bystanders, kids, etc.) to the value of what could be lost during the more standard type of warrant-serving procedure or evidence-gathering procedure.
IOW, a judge (or somebody else if the judges don't have time...) should evaluate whether or not it is worth it to preserve a felony case for selling cocaine by preventing possible evidence destruction through the use of a "dynamic entry" (or similar tactics) when the suspect has eight small children in the home to be raided. At risk = lives vs. at risk = loss of evidence leads to only charges for smaller quantities of cocaine.
Now, i honestly assumed that judges and/or the planning officers were already evaluating situations and risks like this. If that is so, then why are we having mistakes as simple as hitting the wrong address?