Defendant showed no standing to contest a search of a common basement storage area, “not associated with his apartment.” People v. Ocasio, 2023 NY Slip Op 06623, 2023 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6727 (4th Dept. Dec. 22, 2023).
Even if defendant’s apartment was entered unlawfully, officers were getting a search warrant and the independent source doctrine applies. United States v. Jefferson, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 33953 (5th Cir. Dec. 21, 2023).*
There were four CIs and controlled buys. While CIs 1,2,4 were of unknown reliability, they cross-corroborated each other. Recording the controlled buys in his house violated no rights when he permitted the CI in. United States v. Graham, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 227737 (D. Neb. Nov. 6, 2023).*
“Ellis alleges that the placement of cameras in his cell that could record the toilet violated his Fourth Amendment right to privacy and constituted a state tort of invasion of privacy. ECF No. 19 at 19-22. But a pretrial detainee ‘does not have an expectation of privacy in his cell,’ so Ellis cannot claim an unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment or a claim for invasion of privacy under state law. … Thus, [U.S.D.] Judge O’Connor should dismiss these claims with prejudice.” Ellis v. City of White Settlement, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 227672 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 28, 2023), adopted, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 226436 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 20, 2023).
2254 petitioner had his full and fair opportunity to litigate his search claim in state court, and there was no showing of an “unconscionable breakdown” of procedure against it. Roybal v. Schnell, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 227221 (D. Minn. Dec. 21, 2023).*
Defendant’s guilty plea waived his Fourth Amendment claim. Framed under 2255 as an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, it fails on the merits of the search. Jamison v. United States, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 227409 (M.D. Ga. Nov. 22, 2023).* Similarly, defendant’s Alford plea waived his Fourth Amendment claim. State v. Veley, 2023-Ohio-4682, 2023 Ohio App. LEXIS 4494 (6th Dist. Dec. 21, 2023).*
Evidence was seized, including a cell phone, and defendant was charged with a violent crime. As the case progressed to trial, the state moved to dismiss without prejudice so it could investigate further. Defendant sought return of the evidence. On the state’s representation that this case is not over and could be re-indicted because it will still be needed, the motion is denied. State v. Glenn, 2023-Ohio-4654, 2023 Ohio App. LEXIS 4462 (8th Dist. Dec. 21, 2023).
Plaintiffs visited Julian Assange at the Ecuador embassy in London, and the CIA was allegedly able to spy on their conversations. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in this government spying for at least two reasons: First, they knew the CIA was listening when they went there. Second, this was a government building in another country subject to their own security concerns and listening, which they were. Kunstler v. CIA, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 226954 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 19, 2023).*
“The claim that there was an illegal search does not demonstrate prejudice because ‘when a defendant is convicted pursuant to his guilty plea rather than a trial, the validity of that conviction cannot be affected by an alleged Fourth Amendment violation because the conviction does not rest in any way on evidence that may have been improperly seized.’ Haring v. Prosise, 462 U.S. 306, 321 (1983).” United States v. Caldwell, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 227136 (D. Md. Dec. 19, 2023).*
Records were taken by a corporate whistleblower on a flash drive from a Puerto Rican health care provider. That led to a 122-count indictment for health care fraud. A motion to suppress was filed over the records. Defendants were corporate officials of the provider, and they have no standing, no reasonable expectation of privacy in the records. Moreover, they were accessible by many others, even from overseas. There is also no reasonable expectation of privacy in emails received by the recipients. United States v. Gutkin, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 227049 (D.P.R. Dec. 19, 2023).
A Facebook account was searched under a warrant, but defendant never claimed it was his. He thus lacks standing to challenge the search for his posts to that account. Alternatively, a person with apparent authority consented to a search of the account. United States v. Lanier, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 226521 (D. Nev. Dec. 19, 2023),* adopting 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 227330 (D. Nev. Nov. 16, 2023).*
On the question of consent to submit to a search after arrest and protective sweep at a motel room, the court finds defendant’s testimony not credible. The officers’ statements were consistent with other evidence of the search, and defendant admitted at the suppression hearing lying to the officers about his sources of meth. United States v. Vanhook, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 226994 (S.D. Ill. Dec. 20, 2023).*
The search of defendant’s iPhones and iPads lacked probable cause at the time it happened. His wife had apparent authority to search because she knew the passcodes but that doesn’t equate to her apparent authority to seize them. Also, the 94-day delay in getting a search warrant was unreasonable. Finally, the good faith exception of M.R.E. 311(a) does not apply, knowing full well a count will be dismissed. This is fundamental stuff, not cutting-edge law and technology. United States v. Harborth, 2023 CCA LEXIS 540 (N-M Ct. Crim. App. Dec. 21, 2023).
2254 petitioner litigated his search claim in state court, so he had the Stone v. Powell process, and he can’t reassert it in federal court. Roybal v. Schnell, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 227221 (D. Minn. Dec. 21, 2023).*
Officers came upon defendant parked on a rural road at night with a gun in his lap. Drawing down on him was reasonable and wasn’t itself a seizure at that point. United States v. Sanford, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 227306 (W.D.N.C. Nov. 2, 2023),* adopted in part 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 226928 (W.D.N.C. Dec. 20, 2023)* (but statements suppressed).
This is litigation over strip searches of detainees coming into the Manhattan Criminal Court building for court. A policy directive from another case litigated in 2018 is pertinent. The presumption of access to public records applies, and the directive will not be sealed. Lewis v. City of N.Y., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 226867 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 20, 2023).
Multiple hand-to-hand transactions support the search warrant here. “Although the affidavit in this case was thin, it was not devoid of information indicating that evidence of drugs was likely to be found in Howard’s residence. And, as we have explained, ‘[d]oubtful or marginal cases should be resolved in favor of upholding the warrant.’ … We accordingly hold that the trial court did not err in finding that the affidavit was supported by probable cause and in denying Howard’s motion to suppress.” State v. Howard, 2023-Ohio-4618 (1st Dist. Dec. 20, 2023).*
Without telling us what it was, the court holds there was a sufficient showing of probable cause for this warrant. People v. Belizaire, 2023 NY Slip Op 06527, 2023 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6589 (2d Dept. Dec. 20, 2023).*
Posted inProbable cause, Warrant papers|Comments Off on S.D.N.Y.: Policy directive for criminal court appearance strip searches presumptively public and not sealed
Defendant had no Fourth Amendment standing when he was a foreign national on a ship of a foreign country that drew the Coast Guard’s attention south of the Cayman Islands. The Coast Guard finally boarded the ship after the country it was registered to gave permission. 140 bales of cocaine were found. Due to water taken on during a storm after the offloading, the ship sank. Seven were taken into custody. United States v. Hurtado, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 33816 (11th Cir. Dec. 20, 2023).
A Santa Muerte shrine (for the patron saint of drug traffickers) found during execution of a search warrant was admissible at trial with expert testimony. United States v. Martinez, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 33722 (10th Cir. Dec. 20, 2023).*
The traffic stop was concluded by a warning, but the officer asked for consent. Defendant said he was on probation so the officer was going to get to search anyway. The officer asked for confirmation of consent, and it was yes. Both theories support the search. State v. Michael, 2023 N.C. App. LEXIS 840 (Dec. 19, 2023).*
Officers did a controlled buy [used to be called “buy-bust”] of drugs and then used the alleged noise from inside to justify a protective sweep. The protective sweep was valid. Defendant was in the doorway and Santana (1976) justified the entry as did a Second Circuit case from 1990 on almost identical facts. United States v. Cabrera, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 226793 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 20, 2023).
Defendant’s 2255 claim over his search is barred by law of the case. He’d already litigated it and lost before conviction. Chavez v. United States, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 225711 (D. Utah Dec. 18, 2023).*
Plaintiff alleges Fourth Amendment violations from interior inspections of rental properties. This as applied challenge fails for lack of what’s actually happened during inspections. Barstow Proprietor Ass’n v. City of Barstow, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 225947 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2023).*
There is no reasonable expectation of privacy to not be tracked by a device planted in bait bills taken in a bank robbery. United States v. Day, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 226779 (W.D. N.C. Nov. 6, 2023), adopted 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 226025 (W.D. N.C. Dec. 19, 2023).
Petitioner filed a successor petition seeking to raise a dozen issues. One is a search claim, it is not founded on a new constitutional rule, just that the search was illegal. So dismissed. In re Watson, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 33399 (11th Cir. Dec. 15, 2023).*
Plaintiff plausibly states a Fourth Amendment claim that the officer’s opening his mailbox and looking at his mail is a claim for relief. At least enough to survive a motion to dismiss. Oats v. McHenry Cty., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 225630 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 19, 2023).*
The first officer to encounter defendant was responding to a BOLO of suspects on the street related to a nearby home invasion. They were close enough to the description. He stopped them and held them about two minutes until other officers with more information arrived. The stop was with reasonable suspicion. Defendant was not searched, just detained by the first officer, and it was reasonable on the totality. Turay v. Commonwealth, 2023 Va. App. LEXIS 843 ( Dec. 19, 2023) (en banc).
Defendant’s cell phone number was linked to him through public databases. It was a reasonable inference that his CSLI could link him to robberies, so probable cause was shown. United States v. Li Wen Tang, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 225517 (D. Mass. Dec. 18, 2023).*
Defendant was arrested entering a casino with cocaine and he tried to flee. A motion to suppress was originally filed and withdrawn. Then another was filed and denied and not appealed. Now pro se in 2255 he asserts it again as an ineffective assistance claim. It was frivolous, so no IAC. United States v. Carey, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 224155 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 15, 2023).*
The affidavit for warrant here failed to show probable cause to believe a pill manufacturing operation would be found there. There was old information in the affidavit, but it was stale on its own. Also, defendants moved in the meantime to a new location, and nearly everything the government wanted was movable. “The affidavit is simply bereft of facts that would suggest related evidence of illicit pill manufacturing would continue to be kept at 8 Mereline Avenue as of late January 2022, months after Michael and Neysha Matos moved to Connecticut and years after the described incidents occurred. Any actual link to the home was far too stale under the circumstances to establish probable cause.” A closer question is the good faith exception, but the government only makes a generic argument there, citing the Leon exceptions. Motion to suppress granted. United States v. Gonzalez, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 225516 (D. Mass. Dec. 18, 2023).
Defendant litigated a motion to suppress and lost. Then he pled guilty. Then he files a motion to reconsider the denial of the motion to suppress. This is all highly irregular, and neither cites a case where this was permitted and the court can’t find one either. United States v. Hedrick, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 225418 (D.D.C. Dec. 15, 2023).*
Plaintiff’s thrashing in a chair in the police station and hitting himself in the head with his cell phone created enough risk of harm to officers to justify their use of force on him. Donalson v. McLeaish, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 33505 (5th Cir. Dec. 18, 2023).*
LA Times: California police required to state reason for traffic stops before questioning drivers next year by Noah Goldberg (“Starting Jan. 1, California police officers will have to tell drivers why they’ve been pulled over before questioning them on any subject. The new law stems from a state Assembly bill passed in 2022 that will take effect in the new year. The law, written by Assemblymember Chris Holden (D-Pasadena), seeks to curb ‘pretextual stops,’ in which police use a minor infraction — sometimes not mentioned to the driver at the start of the interaction — as the basis to pull over a vehicle and investigate other possible crimes.”).
Posted inReasonable suspicion|Comments Off on LA Times: California police required to state reason for traffic stops before questioning drivers next year
Where the dog indicated an alert almost immediately and before the dog trespassed on the car, the officer had probable cause, and the good faith exception would be applied. People v. Kendricks, 2023 IL App (4th) 230179, 2023 Ill. App. LEXIS 483 (Dec. 19, 2023).
Defendant knew why he’d been detained (admitting “for talking to a minor”) and he wasn’t handcuffed. He consented to a search of his phone and social media accounts. At the suppression hearing over his Miranda waiver, he disclaimed the search suppression issue for the time being. The same factors apply anyway, and the court concludes he consented. United States v. Velazquez-Perez, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 224026 (D.P.R. Dec. 15, 2023).*
Defendant’s motion to reconsider his suppression motion in the fifth day of trial is denied. The testimony is pretty much the same as the suppression hearing, and this isn’t the proper way to do it. United States v. Hernandez, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 224114 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 17, 2023).*
A dog sniff of the person is a search. There is a greater zone of privacy for the person than an inanimate object. People v. Butler, 2023 NY Slip Op 06468, 2023 N.Y. LEXIS 2023 (Dec. 19, 2023), aff’g and remanded, 196 A.D.3d 28, 148 N.Y.S.3d 286 (3d Dept 2021)):
There is a statutory privacy interest in one’s medical records, and an “appropriate court order” is required for the government to access them in a criminal case. An ex parte order not shown to be based on probable cause is no different than an ex parte subpoena previously held invalid under state law. Gates v. State, 2023 Ga. LEXIS 261 (Dec. 19, 2023).
Because there are disputed facts underlying the use of force, the denial of qualified immunity was appropriate and the appeal is dismissed. Williams v. Kenton Cty., 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 33527 (6th Cir. Dec. 18, 2023).*
The search warrant affidavit was wrong that the cell phone was in Utah because after it was pinged it had, unknown to the police, been moved to California. That does not satisfy the substantial preliminary showing required for Franks. United States v. Perez-Espinoza, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 225169 (D. Utah Dec. 15, 2023).*
Impoundment and inventory of defendant’s car parked in his own driveway was unreasonable. There was no valid community caretaking function to be served here. State v. Ontiveros, 2023 N.M. LEXIS 281 (Dec. 18, 2023).
2254 petitioner had a full and fair opportunity to litigate his search issue which ended up in a state Anders brief and silent affirmance which is presumed a determination on the merits. Schulze v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Corr., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 223344 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 15, 2023).*
The bulge in defendant’s waistband, his evasiveness, and then his flight was all reasonable suspicion for a Terry stop. He wasn’t actually stopped until he was taken down. Hawkins v. State, 2023 Md. App. LEXIS 856 (Dec. 14, 2023).*
Defendant was arrested two days after a shooting. A search warrant was obtained for his cell phone. He resisted because there was no allegation he had the phone on him at the time of the shooting. Essentially, people always have their cell phones on them, and that’s nexus enough. “Against this backdrop, this court finds that it was unnecessary for Detective Santiago to allege that defendant was holding or using his cell phone at the time of the crime, as a court of coordinate jurisdiction has also observed (see People v Williams, 79 Misc 3d 809, 817, 188 N.Y.S.3d 417 [Sup Ct Albany Co 2023] [notion that people always carry their cell phones sufficient to show nexus between suspect and cell phone], citing Carpenter, 138 S Ct 2206; Riley, 573 U.S. 373).” People v. Gaynor, 2023 NY Slip Op 23395, 2023 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 23096 (Kings Co. Dec. 18, 2023).
Defendant knew why he’d been detained (admitting “for talking to a minor”) and he wasn’t handcuffed. He consented to a search of his phone and social media accounts. At the suppression hearing over his Miranda waiver, he disclaimed the search suppression issue for the time being. The same factors apply, and the court concludes he consented. United States v. Velazquez-Perez, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 224026 (D.P.R. Dec. 15, 2023).*
Defendant’s motion to reconsider his suppression motion in the fifth day of trial is denied. The testimony is pretty much the same as the suppression hearing, and this isn’t the proper way to do it. United States v. Hernandez, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 224114 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 17, 2023).*
Posted inCell phones, Consent, Nexus|Comments Off on NY Kings Co.: The logic that people always have their cell phones on them is enough for nexus to get this SW
Defendant was arrested on a warrant. At the first appearance there was no determination of probable cause for the arrest, so state law required that he be ORed. The $10,000 bond is set aside. State v. Nelson, 2023 La. App. LEXIS 2160 (La. App. 4 Cir Dec. 18, 2023).
2254 petitioner had a full and fair opportunity to litigate his search issue which ended up in a state Anders brief and silent affirmance which is presumed a determination on the merits. Schulze v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Corr., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 223344 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 15, 2023).*
The bulge in defendant’s waistband, his evasiveness, and then his flight was all reasonable suspicion for a Terry stop. He wasn’t actually stopped until he was taken down. Hawkins v. State, 2023 Md. App. LEXIS 856 (Dec. 14, 2023).*
Reason: This Innocent Woman Is on the Hook for Thousands After a SWAT Team Destroyed Her Home by Billy Binion (“In June of 2022, law enforcement arrived at a modest home on East Calvert Street in South Bend, Indiana. They threw dozens of tear gas grenades into the house, launched flash-bangs through the front door, smashed windows, destroyed the security cameras, punched holes in the walls, ripped a panel and fan from the bathroom wall and ceiling, ransacked and tossed furniture, snatched curtains down, and broke a mirror and various storage containers. The tear gas bombs left openings in the walls, floors, and ceiling. Shattered glass lay strewn across the interior, and a litany of personal belongings—from clothing, beds, and electronics to childhood drawings and family photos—were ruined.”). This is not the first time this has happened to an innocent person, and it won’t be the last. It happened to a friend of mine where the local police did $250,000 damage to her house over a five-hour siege to get her suicidal son to surrender. It turned out he shot himself to death before the first tear gas round came in. Insurance is paying, but they were out of the house for over a year.
Posted inReasonableness, Warrant execution|Comments Off on Reason: This Innocent Woman Is on the Hook for Thousands After a SWAT Team Destroyed Her Home
Bloomberg Law: Google’s Location Data Move Will Reshape Geofence Warrant Use by Skye Whitley (“There are at least three cases seeking to suppress geofence-based evidence before federal appellate courts in the Fourth, Fifth, and District of Columbia circuits. Dozens more are percolating in the federal district courts, even as the likelihood of future geofencing cases dwindles after Google’s change takes effect, said Michael Price, the litigation director at the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers’ Fourth Amendment Center. A key point of contention in litigation has been whether an individual’s location history is their private data or Google’s business records. Google’s decision indicates the former is true, he added. ‘I would encourage anybody litigating one of these cases to make use of it because I think it really does put that question to bed of whose data is it and is it private,’ Price said.”)
Posted ingeofence|Comments Off on Bloomberg Law: Google’s Location Data Move Will Reshape Geofence Warrant Use
"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.
