Officers executing an arrest warrant for murder could conduct a protective sweep. United States v. Moss, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 191835 (M.D. Ala. Sep. 9, 2024), adopted, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 190695 (M.D.Ala. Oct. 21, 2024).
Children’s services “ordering” plaintiff to submit to a drug test stated a claim for relief. Chappel v. Adams Cty. Children’s Servs., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 26698 (6th Cir. Oct. 22, 2024).
This child pornography warrant was not based on stale information because it is almost always kept for a long time. United States v. Adams, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 26710 (6th Cir. Oct. 21, 2024).*
Defendant raised his Fourth Amendment claims in his direct appeal, so he can’t raise it in his 2255, so no CoA. United States v. Mirabal, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 26765 (10th Cir. Oct. 23, 2024).*
Here the affidavit had a gratuitous statement that there were federal wiretaps, but they didn’t involve defendant. Still, it made it into the affidavit for warrant along with identification information. There were also observations of him going into suspect premises. The court finds there was probable cause in substantial part because defendant carried the burden on overcoming the presumption of validity of the warrant. State v. Lampton, 2024 La. App. LEXIS 1734 (La. App. 5 Cir. Oct. 22, 2024). The best one can say is that this was thin “but [barely] good enough for government work”:
Aside from there being a basis for a frisk, defendant’s resistance to it justified it under circuit precedent. United States v. Gatnoor, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 191729 (D.S.D. Oct. 18, 2024).
“We agree that, on this record, Burks failed to demonstrate a reasonable expectation of privacy in the hotel room. But even assuming otherwise, exigent circumstances justified the officers’ warrantless entry. … The officers reasonably believed that a young woman, reported kidnapped and held by pimps, was potentially in danger. … Their ensuing search was also reasonable in its scope and manner.” United States v. Burks, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 26504 (9th Cir. Oct. 21, 2024).*
A medical emergency justified the entry here, and plain view sustained the seizure. United States v. Buck, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 26505 (9th Cir. Oct. 21, 2024).*
2255 petitioner’s search claim was waived by his guilty plea. Malara v. United States, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 190513 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 21, 2024).*
Four month delay in searching cell phones after lawfully seizing them was not unreasonable. “Defendant relies primarily on United States v. Smith, a Second Circuit case. … There, in assessing whether a thirty-one day delay between police seizing a tablet and obtaining a search warrant for that tablet was reasonable, the Second Circuit considered four factors: “(1) the length of the delay, (2) the importance of the seized property to the defendant, (3) whether the defendant had a reduced property interest in the seized items, and (4) the strength of the state’s justification for the delay.” United States v. Smith, 967 F.3d 198, 206 (2d Cir. 2020). As it has before, see United States v. Berroa, …, the Court finds the general analytical framework employed by the Second Circuit instructive. Accordingly, it will generally consider the Smith factors in assessing whether the four-month delay at issue here was reasonable.” United States v. Jones, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 191625 (D. Mass. Oct. 22, 2024).
Plaintiff stated a claim where he plausibly alleged the officer pulled a gun on him and threatened to shoot him for asking for the officer’s name and badge number. Watson v. Boyd, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 26478 (8th Cir. Oct. 21, 2024).*
None of the individual defendants has standing to challenge corporate search warrants. United States v. Bartlett, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 190926 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 21, 2024).*
One search warrant led to another. The fact the first one didn’t produce a prosecutable case doesn’t mean the second lacked probable cause. State v. Combs, 2024 W. Va. LEXIS 429 (Oct. 22, 2024).*
“Similarly, where an officer is legitimately in possession of a cell phone dropped at the scene of a crime and observes, in plain view, an incoming call arriving on the cell phone, the officer may lawfully answer the incoming call without violating the Fourth Amendment. The only thing the officer does to answer the incoming call is to push a button or swipe the cell phone interface. There is no other consequence, such as reviewing data or scrolling the phone for information, from answering the call. Thus, an officer lawfully holding a cell phone who answers an incoming call does not access the kinds of cell phone information that the Supreme Court highlighted as making a cell phone fundamentally different from other items a person may carry. See e.g., Riley, 573 U.S at 386, 393, 393-94, 394, 396-97, 400 (citing, in part, the cell phone’s vast storage capacity and the immense amount of personal information stored on a cell phone). Detective Maritz did not access or try to access any of the data within the cell phone. Therefore, there was no search of the cell phone.” United States v. Beasley, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 191472 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 22, 2024).
Defendant left a gun in a police car and was found not to have abandoned it because there wasn’t disavowal of it. [One could disagree.] But that doesn’t matter because there was probable cause for his seizure so there was no fruit of the poisonous tree. “Based on the totality of the circumstances, Officer Falldorf and Officer Lee had probable cause to seize Defendant with the use of their weapons. Defendant need not actually fire his gun for probable cause to exist; the events leading up to the shooting, coupled with Defendant threatening the officers with a weapon, is sufficient. Garner, 471 U.S. at 11.” United States v. Martinez, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 191364 (D. Nev. Oct. 21, 2024).* [This one’s not going in the supplement. I don’t have any confidence it would survive appeal on abandonment. Few courts would be that generous.]
Posted inAbandonment, Cell phones|Comments Off on W.D.Pa.: Police officer can answer a dropped cell phone without violating 4A; that’s not a search
A state judge who sat on search warrant requests, didn’t know the definition of probable cause despite having been a former prosecutor and defense lawyer for 15 years, and imposed unnecessary legal requirements on the state to obtain warrants violated the Canons of Judicial Conduct. He apparently erroneously rejected 27% of all search warrant requests when the local norm otherwise was <2.4%. In Re Fiffie, 2024 La. LEXIS 1581 (Oct. 25, 2024):
Posted inNeutral and detached magistrate|Comments Off on LA: Judge’s arbitrarily denying or slow walking SW requests violates Canons of Judicial Conduct
“Defendant acknowledges that the affidavit in support of the search warrant ‘establishes probable cause to believe [Defendant] distributed controlled substances’ (and it plainly does), but says ‘the nexus between his drug activity and the apartment is thin.’ Aplt’s Op. Br. at 24. We think otherwise. To be sure, our precedents require a nexus between a defendant’s drug dealing and his residence before probable cause exists to search the residence. … But where probable cause exists to believe a defendant is dealing drugs, we have explained that ‘little “additional evidence” is generally required’ before probable cause exists to search the defendant’s residence. … ‘In some cases, the “additional evidence” linking an individual’s suspected illegal activity to his home has thus come in the form of an affiant officer’s statement that certain evidence—in his or her professional experience—is likely to be found in a defendant’s residence.’” United States v. Moss, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 26622 (10th Cir. Oct. 22, 2024).
“We therefore conclude that ‘the normal speed of traffic’ pursuant to § 28-721(B) necessarily refers to a speed not exceeding the maximum posted speed set forth in § 28-702.04. Under this construction, the failure to pace a speeding car can never be the sole basis for finding a failure to proceed at ‘the normal speed of traffic’ in violation of § 28-721(B). The state has articulated no other basis for finding Alvarez-Soto in violation of § 28-721(B), the only ground Trooper Shewey articulated for the stop.” State v. Alvarez-Soto, 2024 Ariz. App. LEXIS 123 (Oct. 21, 2024).*
Posted inNexus, Reasonable suspicion|Comments Off on CA10: When PC is shown, nexus to home can be “thin”
The nexus in the affidavit for the warrant for defendant’s car did not extend to his house, so there was no probable cause for the house search. (The search is valid, however, from inevitable discovery. “That said, because the State has met its burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that routine police investigatory procedures were already underway and the challenged behavior merely accelerated the discovery of the evidence, the inevitable discovery doctrine applies and the Motion to Suppress the Residence Warrant is therefore DENIED.”) State v. Heck, 2024 Del. Super. LEXIS 704 (Oct. 17, 2024).
“After considering these [Graham] factors, we conclude that Snyder’s single use of the taser was objectively reasonable under the circumstances. Coriell was both actively resisting arrest and attempting to evade arrest by flight. Upon exiting the vehicle, Coriell pushed Snyder away and resisted Snyder’s attempts to restrain him. He then fled on foot. Snyder used his taser to halt Coriell’s attempted flight. He did not use more force than was necessary.” Coriell v. Snyder, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 26376 (11th Cir. Oct. 18, 2024).*
Plaintiff’s § 1983 false arrest claim was barred by statute of limitations, filed one day too late. Griffin v. Hunter, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 26437 (6th Cir. Oct. 17, 2024).*
Posted inExcessive force, Nexus, Waiver|Comments Off on DE: Nexus for SW for car did not extend to def’s house
Once there was probable cause to search a vehicle because of what was on the driver, there was also probable cause to search the purse of his passenger. State v. Edwards, 2024 S.D. 62, 2024 S.D. LEXIS 136 (Oct. 16, 2024).
Defendant “argues that the bodycam evidence refutes Trooper Myer’s testimony that the truck and trailer license plates weren’t legible from a distance of 100 feet. The court is not persuaded. Nowhere does the bodycam video clearly capture the license plates, so the video evidence does not undermine—much less refute—Trooper Myer’s testimony that he couldn’t read the license plates from 100 feet away. The court finds Trooper Myer’s testimony credible on this point.” United States v. Buenrostro, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189991 (D. Utah Oct. 17, 2024).*
“Under the totality of the circumstances, the Court finds that the anonymous call to law enforcement combined with Officer Bishop’s observations and experience formed a sufficient basis for suspecting that Hamblin was engaged in criminal wrongdoing. The Court will address Hamblin’s arguments in turn. First, his argument related to the anonymous caller and second, his argument related to Officer Bishop’s observations and experience.” United States v. Hamblin, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 190057 (D. Mont. Oct. 18, 2024).*
Defendant was a suspect in robberies, and when he was arrested, there was a cell phone at his feet. There was no direct link to the cell phone and the robberies. The affidavit relied on the officer’s experience [of course] that evidence could be found on the phone. Essentially, after a bit of discussion, the court holds that the warrant was relied on in good faith without regard to whether probable cause actually existed. United States v. Rolling, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 26433 (6th Cir. Oct. 17, 2024):
Posted inCell phones, Good faith exception|Comments Off on CA6: Cell phone SW affidavit relying on officer’s experience was sufficient on GFE, even if PC was lacking
Checking DMV and criminal history during a traffic stop is not unreasonable. United States v. Daniels, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 190101 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 18, 2024).
Defendant “argues that the bodycam evidence refutes Trooper Myer’s testimony that the truck and trailer license plates weren’t legible from a distance of 100 feet. The court is not persuaded. Nowhere does the bodycam video clearly capture the license plates, so the video evidence does not undermine—much less refute—Trooper Myer’s testimony that he couldn’t read the license plates from 100 feet away. The court finds Trooper Myer’s testimony credible on this point.” United States v. Buenrostro, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189991 (D. Utah Oct. 17, 2024).*
“Under the totality of the circumstances, the Court finds that the anonymous call to law enforcement combined with Officer Bishop’s observations and experience formed a sufficient basis for suspecting that Hamblin was engaged in criminal wrongdoing. The Court will address Hamblin’s arguments in turn. First, his argument related to the anonymous caller and second, his argument related to Officer Bishop’s observations and experience.” United States v. Hamblin, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 190057 (D. Mont. Oct. 18, 2024).*
Posted inAutomatic license plate readers|Comments Off on techdirt: Federal Court Says Three Hits From Flock ALPR Cameras Isn’t Enough For A ‘Carpenter’ Violation
Just filing lawsuits doesn’t normally merit comment here, but this is an exception:
404media: Lawsuit Argues Warrantless Use of Flock Surveillance Cameras Is Unconstitutional by Jason Koebler (“It is functionally impossible for people to drive anywhere without having their movements tracked, photographed, and stored in an AI-assisted database that enables the warrantless surveillance of their every move. This civil rights lawsuit seeks to end this dragnet surveillance program.”).
Defendant was a passenger in a van owned by a family member and transporting his stuff. He had standing to challenge the stop and detention. The stop was admittedly valid, and the extension of 15 minutes was based on reasonable suspicion. United States v. Maldonado-Benitez, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189946 (D. Minn. Aug. 21, 2024), adopted, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189437 (D. Minn. Oct. 18, 2024).
Defendant didn’t submit to the officers’ show of authority, and he fled. That gave reasonable suspicion to detain him further. United States v. Lambert, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189628 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 18, 2024).*
“Thus, even if the Government conducted FISA surveillance of the Defendant, and even if the Defendant were able to convince the Court, after an adversarial proceeding, that evidence at trial would be obtained or derived from such information, the next step would be an in camera, ex parte review of the evidence by the Court under 50 U.S.C. § 1806(f)—in other words, a process substantially similar to the in camera, ex parte Conference that already happened in this case on July 23, 2024. And, on the basis of that Conference, the Court has already expressly held that ‘there is no basis on which to believe or suspect that the rights of Defendant have been violated in any way with respect to any government activities authorized by FISA.’ (ECF No. 143 at 3.) There is no reason to revisit that conclusion now.” United States v. Russell, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189535 (D. Md. Oct. 17, 2024).*
Posted inFISA, Reasonable suspicion, Standing|Comments Off on D.Minn.: While def was a passenger in a van, it was transporting his stuff, so he had standing
Plaintiff’s § 1983 suit for return of property is denied because there is a state law remedy, even if a federal claim was barred by Heck. Owens v. Samuel, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189894 (W.D. Ark. Sep. 24, 2024), adopted, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189309 (W.D. Ark. Oct. 17, 2024).
The SOL for plaintiff’s search claim accrued at the time it happened. This was filed four years too late. Delarosa v. Vill. of Romeoville, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 26333 (7th Cir. Oct. 18, 2024).*
“The video recordings from the officers’ body-worn cameras undisputably establish that the officers acted reasonably under the circumstances, even if Leonard did not “point” the gun at them. The recordings show that the officers shot Leonard after she reached for the gun in her waistband despite the officers telling her not to do so. Because the officers reasonably defended themselves from the threat of deadly harm, we affirm.” Reynolds v. Shelton, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 26391 (7th Cir. Oct. 18, 2024).*
Defendant’s patdown found a “large bulky item” and then defendant attempted to flee. There was reasonable suspicion. United States v. Anderson, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189763 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 17, 2024).*
The fact execution of the warrant on defendant’s cell phone took longer than the time limitation in the warrant doesn’t justify suppression if the search process started before its expiration. United States v. Hewlett, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189371 (M.D. Ga. Oct. 17, 2024).
There was reasonable suspicion for continuing the stop for a potential drug offense. United States v. Violante-Lujano, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189437 (D. Minn. Oct. 18, 2024).*
There was a direct connection between the defendant’s and co-conspirator’s actions and the place to be searched, so there was nexus. State v. Britt, 2024 Del. Super. LEXIS 694 (Oct. 16, 2024).*
Defendant’s successive petition was based on his alleged illegal arrest, and it’s denied. Carr v. Bennett, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189534 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 1, 2024).*
Opening a car door during a traffic stop requires reasonable suspicion and is governed by Terry. On the totality, officers had it based on a detailed BOLO. United States v. Crumbley, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189567 (N.D. Ga. Oct. 18, 2024).
Defendant’s FTA justified a subsequent warrant for his arrest. Guam v. Quintanilla, 2024 Guam Trial Order LEXIS 186 (Oct. 7, 2024).*
Defendant’s disagreement with the USMJ’s crediting some witnesses over others doesn’t justify overturning the finding. United States v. Brown-Hampton, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189419 (E.D. Tenn. Oct. 18, 2024).*
The trial court’s finding there was no reasonable suspicion is not supported by the evidence as a whole, and it is reversed. State v. Weaver, 2024-Ohio-5028 (2d Dist. Oct. 18, 2024).*
Just because officers planned to stop defendant if they had a traffic offense to justify it doesn’t mean that they weren’t credible when they testified there was a traffic violation. United States v. Murphy, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189184 (S.D. W. Va. Oct. 17, 2024).* (Police do that all the time, and often they have probable cause for the stop for the underlying offense they’re looking at. Their point is to misdirect to the accused on who their informant might be.)
The search of plaintiff’s place was valid as a parole search even if no reasonable suspicion under state law. Williams v. Brown, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189255 (W.D. Ark. Sep. 6, 2024),* adopted, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 188443 (W.D. Ark. Oct. 16, 2024).*
“Upon de novo review, the Court finds Defendant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the vehicle and lacks standing. To start, Defendant was only an invited guest and a recent passenger in the vehicle, and therefore has a lesser privacy interest. Also, in considering the factors laid out in Smith, Defendant does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy sufficient for standing. Defendant did not have the keys to the vehicle …, and there is no evidence that Defendant regularly stored his personal belongings in the vehicle.” The fact he was being given a ride to a party is not standing. United States v. Dove, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189341 (W.D.N.C. Oct. 17, 2024).*
Posted inPretext, Probation / Parole search, Reasonableness, Standing|Comments Off on S.D.W.Va.: The fact officers planned to stop def doesn’t mean they weren’t credible when they said he committed a traffic violation to justify it
“Second, the affidavit establishes the informant’s veracity. … But the statements about the informant’s reliability, while lacking specificity, are at the very least ‘indicia of probable cause.’ Whether or not probable cause existed, this warrant (though inartfully drafted) presents enough indicia of probable cause for an objectively reasonable officer to rely on it in good faith. See Leon, 468 U.S. at 923. And because the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies, the evidence of the search was properly admitted by the district court.” United States v. Whitlow, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 26272 (11th Cir. Oct. 17, 2024).*
A stop or encounter that was reasonable under the community caretaking function can turn into reasonable suspicion. People v. McAndrew, 2024 IL App (1st) 230881, 2024 Ill. App. LEXIS 2361 (Oct. 17, 2024).*
Impoundment of plaintiff’s RV for blocking other parking spaces was reasonable under the community caretaking function under city ordinance that sought to address this. Potter v. City of Lacey, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 26253 (9th Cir. Oct. 17, 2024).*
"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, Let it Bleed (album, 1969)
"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]
“Children grow up thinking the adult world is ordered, rational, fit for purpose. It’s crap. Becoming a man is realising that it’s all rotten. Realising how to celebrate that rottenness, that’s freedom.” – John le Carré, The Night Manager (1993), line by Richard Roper
"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)
The book was dedicated in the first (1982) and sixth (2025) editions to Justin William Hall (1975-2025). He was three when this project started in 1978.
