A: In practical terms, the failure of officers to "knock and announce" does not usually mean that evidence taken or discovered from serving the warrant can be suppressed or excluded. The US Supreme Court took up this question in a case called Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586 (2006), and affirmed that with rare exceptions, a failure to knock and announce does not allow a court to throw out evidence seized.
However, there are definitely many circumstances in which a failure to knock and announce can be the basis of a tort or civil rights lawsuit, but this will usually be limited to damage or injuries resulting from the failure to knock and announce. For example, a law enforcement agency could be made to pay the cost of fixing damage to property such as a door, or the medical bills of a person injured because of the agency's failure to attempt to serve the warrant without force or violence.
A: Both Wisconsin law and federal law provide a right for a person being cared for due to a disability to be given the least restrictive placement. Sometimes court battles arise because that person, the person's guardian or family and the state disagree as to what placement is required. If you are your father's guardian, the state should not be able to do much here without your consent, or at least giving you notice of what they intend to do and an opportunity to be heard.
If things have been done without you being in the loop, or you are concerned about that happening in the near future, it could be important to consult further with an attorney here about legal options for what to do about it.
A: The short answer is yes. Courts have consistently upheld implied consent testing against constitutional challenges. At least in theory, the subject person's "consent" for the alcohol test is given when they become (or remain) a licensed driver, such that the test does not constitute an illegal involuntary search. As many driver's ed instructors love saying: "Driving is a privilege, not a right." The legality of Implied Consent laws is based largely on that concept, which is legally correct, but not quite the whole story.
Just because the concept of Implied Consent is constitutional does NOT mean that every test or consequence for a test refusal is constitutional. Testing should be legally limited to licensed drivers while driving (rather than, say, a passenger in a car, or someone stopped on the sidewalk on suspicion of public intoxication). There are also very specific guidelines that law enforcement must follow, and test results can sometimes be thrown out if they don't. An otherwise legal test might also follow an illegal traffic stop, depending on the circumstances.