A petition for writ of mandamus can’t be used as an interlocutory appeal of denial of a motion to suppress. In re Taylor for A Writ of Mandamus, 2023 Del. LEXIS 400 (Dec. 5, 2023).
Plaintiff sued under the Fourth Amendment for her computer camera scanning her room before an examination. On her death without a personal representative coming in, the appeal is dismissed. Ogletree v. Bloomberg, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 32000 (6th Cir. Dec. 4, 2023).*
Habeas petitioner’s claim defense counsel was ineffective for not filing a motion to suppress without any supporting argument of fact or law is insufficient. Barker v. United States, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 31995 (6th Cir. Dec. 4, 2023).*
Defendant seeks unrestricted phone access without recording, but not just to his lawyer or standby counsel–every call. No First, Fourth, or Sixth Amendment violation (limited to lawyers). United States v. Cromar, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 215498 (D. Utah Dec. 4, 2023).*
Plaintiff federal inmate sued Tracfone for allegedly providing information about him to the government that helped lead to his 852 month sentence for sex trafficking. The statute of limitations for violations of the Stored Communications Act is two years, and the pleadings in this criminal case show that he knew about it more than two years before filing suit. Thus, the claim is barred. Boyle v. Tracfone Wireless, Inc., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 214031 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 1, 2023).*
The totality of information in the search warrant showed an ongoing enterprise, so the information wasn’t stale. State v. Williams, 2023-Ohio-4344 (6th Dist. Dec. 1, 2023).*
Plaintiff inmate claims to have an allergy. The prison wanted to draw blood to confirm. “Plaintiff has failed to state a claim that the Defendants violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures when they drew and tested his blood for an allergy of which he complained.” Middlebrook v. Wellman, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 213864 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 1, 2023).*
Plaintiff inmate’s claims his restraints when he moves in the prison are unreasonable. This doesn’t state a claim. Petion v. Chevalier, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 213927 (D. Conn. Dec. 1, 2023).*
Plaintiff’s placement in RHU didn’t deprive him of any Fourth, Eighth, or Fourteenth Amendment rights. Gorrio v. Terra, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 215323 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 4, 2023).*
Posted inPrison and jail searches|Comments Off on W.D.Mich.: Inmate can’t claim a medical condition and then refuse testing on 4A grounds
Some of the items seized under the warrant were named or were covered by plain view when the police got inside. Some are excludable, but they aren’t returned because the government intends to forfeit. United States v. Abdul-Latif, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 214141 (E.D. Tenn. Nov. 7, 2023), adopted, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 213234 (E.D. Tenn. Nov. 30, 2023).
Defendant failed to meet his burden of pleading and proof on his ineffective assistance of counsel claim that counsel failed to move to suppress the search of a bar surveillance recording device. The police had it voluntarily from the bar owner along with the password to get into it. A search warrant was obtained for it that wasn’t promptly executed. There’s no requirement under state law that the state’s failure to search it promptly leads to suppression. [Standing to challenge the search isn’t even mentioned.] Mohr v. State, 2023 Ga. App. LEXIS 553 (Dec. 1, 2023).*
Without a transcript of the suppression hearing for appeal, there’s nothing to rule on. Denial of motion to suppress affirmed. State v. Crain, 2023 Ohio App. LEXIS 4167 (5th Dist. Nov. 30, 2023).*
Defendant was on GPS electronic monitoring while on probation. The search of his EM device to prove he was involved in a robbery was not unreasonable. Moreover, even if the probation department’s regulations were somehow violated, the exclusionary rule should not be applied. Young v. United States, 2023 D.C. App. LEXIS 325 (Nov. 30, 2023).
The defendant officer had qualified immunity for killing plaintiff’s pitbull that had attacked another dog and children and was coming at the officer. Eady v. Bryant, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 213237 (E.D. Tenn. Nov. 30, 2023).*
Defendant’s cell phone was searched at JFK two separate times based on reasonable suspicion that there was information on it of bank fraud, aggravated identity theft, and money laundering. It was also done in good faith. United States v. Alisigwe, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 213415 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 30, 2023).*
Defendant is charged with hostage taking in the Dominican Republic. Trial starts next week. He is a citizen of Venezuela in the Dominican Republic, and the search there did not violate his Fourth Amendment rights since he had no connection to the United States. “Because the joint-venture doctrine offers no help to a defendant without Fourth Amendment rights at the time of search — even if American officials played a significant role, which is at least arguable here — that path to relief is similarly blocked.” United States v. Delgado, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 213639 (D.D.C. Dec. 1, 2023).
“Defendant Trujillo explicitly requested the towing of the vehicle at multiple points during the stop, which authorized and resulted in a lawful impoundment and inventory search. While awaiting confirmation of the arrest warrant, Deputy Skroch asked Defendant Trujillo what he would like done with the vehicle in the event the warrant confirmed.” United States v. Trujillo, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 212679 (D.N.M. Nov. 29, 2023).*
Even if the officer was mistaken on one fact, there was probable cause here and the mistake was objectively reasonable. Also, the CI was adequately corroborated by additional investigation. United States v. Smith, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 213153 (E.D. Mo. Nov. 30, 2023).*
“At no point was D.J. prevented from leaving the scene—rather, he was repeatedly asked to do so, to ‘get back’ and move away while Deputy Moring was securing the perimeter. True, he was prevented from further approaching Perkins and Deputy Hart, but that was the officers’ prerogative to secure the scene and did not infringe on D.J.’s Fourth Amendment rights. … [¶] Thus, even accepting D.J.’s version of the facts as true, he cannot prevail on a claim of excessive force because there was no violation of his Fourth Amendment rights.” Perkins v. Hart, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 31734 (5th Cir. Nov. 30, 2023).
The government didn’t timely raise standing against defendant’s probation search in the home of a third person he was visiting. Instead, the court finds attenuation of any allegedly illegal conduct. The search was by consent after an explicit warning of Fourth Amendment rights to the homeowner who wasn’t even the target of the search. It was clearly voluntary as to her. United States v. Gilbert, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 31531 (11th Cir. Nov. 29, 2023).*
The exclusionary rule doesn’t apply in civil cases. This circuit hasn’t ruled on inevitable discovery in civil cases, but other circuits let it in. It will be here. Thomas v. McCabe, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 213252 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 30, 2023).*
Posted inConsent, Waiver|Comments Off on CA5: No excessive force without a seizure; here, ptf told to “get back”
The stop was justified because the taillights were “smoked out” and one couldn’t adequately see them. During the stop, the officer smelled marijuana, but he didn’t act on that alone. He asked questions, saw the medical marijuana card, but he also saw enough marijuana packaging that strongly suggested defendant was not just a lawful user. “Officer Munoz had probable cause to search Moore’s car because he had diligently investigated to confirm or dispel his suspicions that Moore possessed more than the allowable amount of marijuana and was engaged in sales of the drug.” United States v. Moore, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 212729 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 29, 2023).
Even if defendant’s cell phone was illegally searched to get its serial number (compare Arizona v. Hicks), three witnesses provided information that there was child pornography on the cell phone and any motion to suppress would have be denied. Therefore, defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for not making that serial number challenge. United States v. Soto, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 211931 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 29, 2023).*
Officers had probable cause defendant was hauling bulk cash when he was stopped, and that permitted a search of the whole vehicle. United States v. Zeng, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 212044 (D. Mass. Nov. 29, 2023).*
Posted inCell phones, Probable cause|Comments Off on E.D.Cal.: Possession of enough to be a MJ distributor was PC even in a legal use state
Just because Greyhound cooperates with the DEA in Albuquerque doesn’t mean it can be sued there under the Fourth Amendment. Fernandez v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 211564 (D.N.M. Nov. 28, 2023).
Homeless in Los Angeles likely had a reasonable expectation of privacy in their stuff where they were staying, but the city didn’t destroy it–they moved it and told them where to go to retrieve. Therefore, no Fourth Amendment violation. People of City of L.A. Who Are Un-Housed v. Garcetti, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 211358 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2023).
A typo on the date in the body of affidavit for warrant was off a day, and it wasn’t material. United States v. Hampton, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 211819 (D. Alaska Nov. 29, 2023).*
Defendant was stopped for a traffic offense that wasn’t disputed, and the officer ran his ID coming up with an outstanding warrant for nonpayment of a fine. The search incident to the arrest on the outstanding warrant was valid, and the officer relied in good faith on the warrant despite defendant’s contention that it converted the fine only offense into custody. State v. Grayson, 2023-Ohio-4275, 2023 Ohio App. LEXIS 4127 (1st Dist. Nov. 29, 2023).*
Even if there was a recently discovered Franks violation in the underlying search warrant affidavit that produced evidence against defendant, that doesn’t satisfy the standard for a successor habeas petition. In re Rooks, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 31471 (6th Cir. Nov. 28, 2023).
Defendant consented to a patdown, and that produced meth which was validly seized. State v. Klein, 2023 Mo. App. LEXIS 886 (Nov. 28, 2023).*
The challenged statements were not clearly false nor material for Franks. Vu v. Tolvstad, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 210667 (W.D. Wis. Nov. 27, 2023).*
Plaintiff stated enough to state a claim that his strip search was unreasonable and conducted abusively. Ibrahim v. Davis, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 211565 (D.N.J. Nov. 28, 2023).*
An FBI 302 mentioned a search warrant, and all of this in context did not amount to a Brady violation. Reyes v. State, 2023 Conn. App. LEXIS 272 (Nov. 28, 2023).
“We conclude, based on the record, that the district court erred in dismissing the Appellees’ claim of excessive force. Having reviewed the record, particularly the videotape of the incident, we conclude that the officers initial use of force to secure Lewis against the window was reasonable under the circumstances. However, we disagree with the district court regarding the continued use of force by the officers.” Lewis v. City of Marietta, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 31423 (11th Cir. Nov. 28, 2023).*
The alleged false statement in the search warrant application was negligent at worst and not even material to the finding of probable cause. United States v. Woods, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 210862 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 27, 2023).*
Stone deals with the opportunity to seek suppression in state court, not whether it could succeed. Hawthorne v. Vannoy, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 211365 (E.D. La. Oct. 19, 2023),* adopted, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 210051 (E.D. La. Nov. 27, 2023).*
Federal court has no Rule 41(g) jurisdiction over seized and held property by state officials never transferred to federal custody. United States v. Gonzalez, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 210395 (W.D.N.Y. Nov. 27, 2023).
Defendant’s Franks challenge fails: “In conclusion, the Court notes that there was sufficient evidence to support probable cause including, inter alia, 1) matching descriptions of the robber and his attire in surveillance videos and eyewitness accounts of the robbery, 2) matching descriptions of the SUVs from the surveillance videos, 3) statements from hotel management tying defendant to the AC Hotel, and 4) evidence from the Station Landing surveillance video on December 12 at 7:35 p.m. showing a white male with a nearly identical description to the robber get into a large white SUV several minutes prior to the robbery. [¶] Defendant’s efforts to isolate individual pieces of evidence and suggest that each in itself is insufficient to establish probable cause runs contrary to the totality of the circumstances inquiry. The motion to suppress will be denied.” United States v. Schurko, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 210145 (D. Mass. Nov. 27, 2023).*
A civil Franks violation is clearly established law for qualified immunity. Bledsoe v. Willis, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 31326 (5th Cir. Nov. 27, 2023).*
Posted inFranks doctrine|Comments Off on W.D.N.Y.: If feds never get property from state, no Rule 41(g) jurisdiction over it
Defendant’s argument failed that a license plate reader hit couldn’t provide a basis for a stop when he went on a four county highspeed chase when the police tried to stop him. Landers v. State, 2023 Tex. App. LEXIS 8817 (Tex. App. – Amarillo Nov. 27, 2023).
“Indeed, ‘[b]ecause [a] malicious prosecution claim is based on the Fourth Amendment’s right to be free from unreasonable seizure, our inquiry is not limited to the validity of the warrant application.’ [Humbert, 866 F.3d at 559]. Rather, a plaintiff must show ‘that the legal process instituted against him was without probable cause.’ Id.; see also id. at 559-60 (examining evidence extrinsic to warrant application to determine if officers had probable cause to arrest plaintiff). Thus, the district court was not limited to considering facts contained in the warrant application when conducting its probable cause analysis.” Sullivan v. Smilijanich, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 31270 (4th Cir. Nov. 27, 2023).*
Defendant’s Franks challenge based on the officer allegedly not knowing what he looked like when the officer had seen him a couple of days before wasn’t a false statement. United States v. Schurko, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 210145 (D. Mass. Nov. 27, 2023).*
Defendant stayed in a bedroom in another’s house, and he paid rent. It was unreasonable for officers to conclude that the homeowner could consent to search of the room. Also, the door to the room was closed when the police arrived. State v. Steele, 2023 ND 220, 2023 N.D. LEXIS 223 (Nov. 24, 2023).
Officers had information defendant had potential child pornography on his cell phone. When he was stopped a phone was found on him during a consent search. “[T]he district court appropriately determined that exigent circumstances justified the warrantless seizure of the cell phone. Officers responded to a report that Hagy had taken a nude photograph of a child.” United States v. Hagy, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 31277 (4th Cir. Nov. 27, 2023).*
“Plaintiff’s vague assertion that the Fourth Amendment was violated because Defendants ‘broke state law’ in some unspecified manner is plainly inadequate to state a viable theory of a Fourth Amendment violation as to Plaintiff.” (That’s Virginia v. Moore.) Carrera v. Caviness, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 209803 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 13, 2023),* adopted, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 209381 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2023).*
An extraterritorial stop by an officer does not violate the Fourth Amendment. The exclusionary rule doesn’t apply to statutory violations, here especially because of public safety concerns. City of Fairview Park v. Bowman, 2023-Ohio-4210, 2023 Ohio App. LEXIS 4047 (8th Dist. Nov. 22, 2023).
Plaintiff here made a joke Twitter post on March 20, 2020 that the local sheriff had issued an order to shoot Covid infected people “on sight.” They arrested him for a terroristic threat, but the case was later dismissed. A panel of the Fifth Circuit held it was not a threat and was protected speech. Thus, his arrest violated the First Amendment because there was no probable cause, and thus no qualified immunity. Bailey v. Iles, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 31013 (5th Cir. Nov. 21, 2023) (on rehearing).* [This is a significant free speech case; not much of a search and seizure case.]
Defendant’s appellate counsel didn’t raise a suppression issue he wanted raised. There is no prejudice because he couldn’t have won on that issue even if presented. Defendant shot his wife and then called 911. A search warrant was prepared with a typo that was acknowledged. Settled law showed he would never have prevailed. Therefore, no IAC. Turner v. State, 2023 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 473 (Nov. 22, 2023).*
New Yorker: Does A.I. Lead Police to Ignore Contradictory Evidence? by Eyal Press (“Too often, a facial-recognition search represents virtually the entirety of a police investigation.” Product manufacturers tout its 100% accuracy, but it is anything but. False arrests abound.)
Posted inFacial recognition|Comments Off on New Yorker: Does A.I. Lead Police to Ignore Contradictory Evidence?
“The knock and talk exception has two limitations: (1) it is geographically limited to the front door or a ‘minor departure’ from it. … And (2) it no longer applies if an officer’s behavior ‘objectively reveals a purpose to conduct a search.’ … The Court finds that officers did not exceed the scope of the knock and talk exception for two reasons. [¶] First, investigators did not exceed the geographic limit of the knock and talk exception. … [¶] Second, even though Investigator Williams looked behind him through the window of Defendant’s truck to see the open container and rifle round, this behavior was not, objectively, for the purpose to conduct a search. Instead, Investigator Williams remained in the geographic area of the knock and talk and turned around to look behind him for officer safety purposes, as he testified and as evidenced by his remark recorded on the body camera footage ‘I’m just making sure nobody is behind me brother,’ when he turned around to look at Defendant’s truck.” United States v. Corbett, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 209542 (M.D. Ga. Nov. 22, 2023).
“Under the circumstances here, where Defendant was observed selling narcotics in his car on several occasions, the most recent of which was less than 72 hours before the warrant affidavit, there is probable cause to believe that evidence of drug trafficking will be found in that automobile. That 72 hours passed between the last drug sale and securing the warrant does not eviscerate probable cause.” The good faith exception carries nexus [even though there clearly is]. United States v. Odom, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 209236 (M.D. Tenn. Nov. 22, 2023).*
Posted inKnock and talk, Probable cause|Comments Off on M.D.Ga.: Knock and talk limited to area immediately adjacent to front door
One can’t remove a state criminal case to federal court via habeas to decide his search warrant motions. Washington v. 5th Dist. Court of Texas, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 209404 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 10, 2023), adopted 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 208401 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 21, 2023).
Odor of marijuana from a car and seeing loose marijuana on a lottery ticket during a valid stop is probable cause. State v. Payne, 2023-Ohio-4198 (1st Dist. Nov. 22, 2023).*
Defendant claims letters were seized from his and his co-defendant’s jail cells. His search wasn’t used against him, and he doesn’t have standing on the other. United States v. Dahda, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 209222 (D. Kan. Nov. 22, 2023).*
In civil case for evidence production brought in San Francisco to aid litigation in Ontario, Canada. the court holds that account passwords are protected by the Stored Communications Act and there was no consent to disclosure. In re Path Network, Inc., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 209488 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2023). [I spent a half hour reading this case despite it not being a Fourth Amendment case. It may be a sleeper on this issue.] See techdirt: California Court: Passwords Are Communications, Protected By The Stored Communications Act by Tim Cushing.
An apartment building’s management conducted sprinkler system checks and found drugs, paraphernalia, and cash which it related to the police. The affidavit for warrant was based on probable cause from that view. United States v. Howard, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 208964 (E.D.N.C. Nov. 22, 2023).*
Defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer saw a single ammunition cartridge in plain view, and that justified a search of the vehicle. State v. Gibbs, 2023-Ohio-4223 (9th Dist. Nov. 22, 2023).*
by John Wesley Hall
Criminal Defense Lawyer and
Search and seizure law consultant
Little Rock, Arkansas
Contact: forhall @ aol.com / The Book www.johnwesleyhall.com
"If it was easy, everybody would be doing it. It isn't, and they don't."
—Me
“Life is not a matter of holding good cards, but of playing a poor hand well.”
–Josh Billings (pseudonym of Henry Wheeler Shaw), Josh Billings on Ice, and Other Things (1868) (erroneously attributed to Robert Louis Stevenson, among others)
“I am still learning.”
—Domenico Giuntalodi (but misattributed to Michelangelo Buonarroti (common phrase throughout 1500's)).
"Love work; hate mastery over others; and avoid intimacy with the government."
—Shemaya, in the Thalmud
"It is a pleasant world we live in, sir, a very pleasant world. There are bad people in it, Mr. Richard, but if there were no bad people, there would be no good lawyers."
—Charles Dickens, “The Old Curiosity Shop ... With a Frontispiece. From a Painting by Geo. Cattermole, Etc.” 255 (1848)
"A system of law that not only makes certain conduct criminal, but also lays down rules for the conduct of the authorities, often becomes complex in its application to individual cases, and will from time to time produce imperfect results, especially if one's attention is confined to the particular case at bar. Some criminals do go free because of the necessity of keeping government and its servants in their place. That is one of the costs of having and enforcing a Bill of Rights. This country is built on the assumption that the cost is worth paying, and that in the long run we are all both freer and safer if the Constitution is strictly enforced."
—Williams
v. Nix, 700 F. 2d 1164, 1173 (8th Cir. 1983) (Richard Sheppard Arnold,
J.), rev'd Nix v. Williams, 467 US. 431 (1984).
"The criminal goes free, if he must, but it is the law that sets him free. Nothing can destroy a government more quickly than its failure to observe its own laws,
or worse, its disregard of the charter of its own existence." —Mapp
v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 659 (1961).
"Any costs the exclusionary rule are costs imposed directly by the Fourth Amendment."
—Yale Kamisar, 86 Mich.L.Rev. 1, 36 n. 151 (1987).
"There have been powerful hydraulic pressures throughout our history that
bear heavily on the Court to water down constitutional guarantees and give the
police the upper hand. That hydraulic pressure has probably never been greater
than it is today."
— Terry
v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 39 (1968) (Douglas, J., dissenting).
"The great end, for which men entered into society, was to secure their
property."
—Entick
v. Carrington, 19 How.St.Tr. 1029, 1066, 95 Eng. Rep. 807 (C.P. 1765)
"It is a fair summary of history to say that the safeguards of liberty have
frequently been forged in controversies involving not very nice people. And
so, while we are concerned here with a shabby defrauder, we must deal with his
case in the context of what are really the great themes expressed by the Fourth
Amendment."
—United
States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56, 69 (1950) (Frankfurter, J., dissenting)
"The course of true law pertaining to searches and seizures, as enunciated
here, has not–to put it mildly–run smooth."
—Chapman
v. United States, 365 U.S. 610, 618 (1961) (Frankfurter, J., concurring).
"A search is a search, even if it happens to disclose nothing but the
bottom of a turntable."
—Arizona
v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321, 325 (1987)
"For the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places. What a person knowingly
exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth
Amendment protection. ... But what he seeks to preserve as private, even in
an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected."
—Katz
v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 351 (1967)
“Experience should teach us to be most on guard to
protect liberty when the Government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born
to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded
rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men
of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.”
—United
States v. Olmstead, 277 U.S. 438, 479 (1925) (Brandeis, J., dissenting)
“Liberty—the freedom from unwarranted
intrusion by government—is as easily lost through insistent nibbles by
government officials who seek to do their jobs too well as by those whose purpose
it is to oppress; the piranha can be as deadly as the shark.”
—United
States v. $124,570, 873 F.2d 1240, 1246 (9th Cir. 1989)
"You can't always get what you want /
But if you try sometimes / You just might find / You get what you need."
—Mick Jagger & Keith Richards
"In Germany, they first came for the communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for
the Catholics and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Catholic. Then they came
for me–and by that time there was nobody left to speak up."
—Martin Niemöller (1945) [he served seven years in a concentration
camp]
“You know, most men would get discouraged by
now. Fortunately for you, I am not most men!”
---Pepé Le Pew
"The point of the Fourth Amendment, which often is not grasped by zealous officers,
is not that it denies law enforcement the support of the usual inferences which
reasonable men draw from evidence. Its protection consists in requiring that
those inferences be drawn by a neutral and detached magistrate instead of being
judged by the officer engaged in the often competitive enterprise of ferreting
out crime."
—Johnson
v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 13-14 (1948)
