The full-faith-and-credit clause has been described as the glue that holds the union together. It has been interpreted by the Sup. Ct. as a self-executing provision, notwithstanding Congress' power to provide regulations as to its enforcement. It requires each state to honor the official decrees, judgments, and acts of each of the other states. The extent of Congress' regulation has been to specify the means by which documentation of such may be authenticated.
It does not provide for the ability of any state to govern within the territory of another state. Recognition of the laws of another state has nothing to do with the extraterritorial application of those laws. So, no, Indiana's court rulings have no effect in Wyoming, for example, except as to the findings of fact expressed and the final judgments rendered. So, if one were to file suit in Indiana over the actions of jack-booted thugs posing as police officers, and lost that suit, and one of the JBT's moved to Wyoming, he couldn't then file suit under Wyoming law over the same facts, because the judgment of the Indian court was conclusive on that issue (there are other problems with that kind of strategy, that are irrelevant to this discussion).
It does not mean that Virginia has to recognize a "same-sex marriage" created by the Federal District of Washington. But, if two people entered into such an arrangement, subsequently obtained a divorce resulting an order that one was to pay the other spousal support or alimony, that order to pay would have to be honored in Virginia, even though the transaction creating the purported obligation was not lawful (and is, in fact, a crime) in Virginia. An order resulting from a suit over gambling debts in Nevada can be enforced in South Carolina, even though gambling is illegal in South Carolina.
The issue of no-knock warrants was first addressed by English courts in the late Sixteenth Century, giving rise to what was then called, "the castle doctrine". At common law, there is a requirement that law enforcement officials knock or give other audible warning, allow time for the occupants to come to the door, and serve whatever documents support the entry prior to entering. The specific reason given by the courts was that a man's home is his castle, and he's got as much right to defend his home as the king has to defend his, and that law enforcement officers who burst in unannounced can be lawfully killed in the process because their breach of the king's peace, and thus, law enforcement officers are prohibited from doing so in part for their own safety. I maintain that this is the law presently in states that recognize and incorporate the common law of England (such as Virginia). It clearly does not apply in states derivative of the Roman inquisitorial system (i.e., those based on or derivative of Spanish or French law or of those states in which Roman influence has recently expanded due to immigration, such as Massachussetts, New York, New Jersey, Illinois, California, Hawaii, and Maryland).