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).*
NYPD officers stopped defendant riding a bike in Queens. They asked him whether he was armed, and he admitted he was, so he was frisked and arrested. The stop lacked any reasonable suspicion, and the gun should have been suppressed. People v. Rodriguez, 2023 NY Slip Op 05972, 2023 N.Y. LEXIS 1889 (Nov. 21, 2023).
Officers set up a traffic safety roadblock on a bridge from Manhattan to the Bronx where every third car was stopped. Intoxicated drivers wasn’t the focus, but they would make an arrest if they found one. When defendant’s car stopped, he rolled down the window to talk to the officer and the smell of burnt marijuana came out, so that led to a vehicle search. First, the state proved justification for the roadblock. Second, legalization of marijuana doesn’t apply retroactively (this was in 2018, and the law changed March 31, 2021). People v. Pastrana, 2023 NY Slip Op 05966, 2023 N.Y. LEXIS 1894 (Nov. 21, 2023).*
Defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in his girlfriend’s car that he used for a bank robbery and then left it elsewhere. United States v. Newton, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 31010 (5th Cir. Nov. 21, 2023).*
Posted inStanding, Stop and frisk|Comments Off on NY: Stop of man on bike without RS was unreasonable
Defendant was convicted of accessory to murder. He claimed trial counsel was ineffective for not moving to suppress the 2013 search of his cell phone. Police sought a warrant for the phone, and the DA prepared it. While the papers were on the way to the judge, the phone was plugged into the extraction device, and it would have taken hours. There was nothing removed from the phone anyone saw by the time the warrant was signed by the judge. Significantly, trial counsel wasn’t called as a witness, so the court holds “We are thus required affirmatively to contemplate whether any objectively reasonable strategy existed for not filing a motion to suppress.” As for prejudice, it would be harmless because the other phone in the calls and text was also seized and information extracted. Thus, it was coming in anyway; therefore, no prejudice. Soyini v. Comm’r of Corr., 2023 Conn. App. LEXIS 265 (Nov. 21, 2023). [This could have been decided on inevitable discovery, but went down as no Strickland prejudice and it was probably strategy. It would have been way better for the court to have decided this on the merits of the search and be done with it.]
Police came to a duplex looking for a murder suspect. They knocked at the door and it was opened. They came into the vestibule, saw the man they wanted and went in for him. The entry was without proper consent or a warrant. People v. Cuencas, 2023 NY Slip Op 05974, 2023 N.Y. LEXIS 1893 (Nov. 21, 2023).*
“Without any further attempts to subdue Sligh without the use of a dog bite, and without providing Sligh any warning that she may be subjected to a dog bite if she did not comply, Sutton sicced a dog on a woman who (1) was not suspected of any crime; (2) did not pose an immediate safety threat to officers or others; and (3) was in need of emergency medical intervention due to self-harm. Furthermore, Sligh–surrounded by a fence and thick foliage–was not attempting to flee the officers. Employing a dog bite under these circumstances arguably constituted an unreasonable seizure in violation of Sligh’s Fourth Amendment rights.” Sligh v. City of Conroe, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 31011 (5th Cir. Nov. 21, 2023).
Defense counsel was not ineffective for not moving to suppress the cell phone search because it was reasonable under the law at the time it happened. The state court’s original determination that the cell phone search was proper was actually an unreasonable application of later Supreme Court precedent. The search was valid incident to arrest even though Riley wasn’t decided until three months later based on state precedent (applying California law at the time). It was also unreasonable for the state to apply inventory to a cell phone search. Therefore, the search would have been found valid, and the motion to suppress denied, and it’s not ineffective assistance of counsel to file a motion to suppress that would lose. Hudspath v. Garrett, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 208362 (D. Nev. Nov. 20, 2023).* [I admit this opinion confused me. Riley came along while the case was pending. Still, the good faith exception seemingly cures all ills.]
Reason: DEA’s Domestic Surveillance ‘Mission Creep’ by Patrick Eddington (“It appears that DEA agents have been employed on non-drug-related investigations for far longer than they were originally authorized.”)
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on Reason: DEA’s Domestic Surveillance ‘Mission Creep’
Merely scrolling through an electronic device at the border is a reasonable border search. United States v. Vrdoljak, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 208332 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 20, 2023).
The officer was incidentally following defendant, and he observed her driving within her lane but touching the lines, then there were traffic offenses. That was reasonable suspicion. State v. Gomez-Torres, 2023 Iowa App. LEXIS 901 (Nov. 21, 2023).*
A state prisoner quarantined for Covid couldn’t state a claim for relief. Richson-Bey v. Bell, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 30939 (9th Cir. Nov. 21, 2023).*
Officers who shot a man running at them down a hallway during an active domestic disturbance call get qualified immunity. Waid v. Cty. of Lyon, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 30930 (9th Cir. Nov. 21, 2023).*
“As a warrant was required for the officers to lawfully enter the home, and no warrant had been issued when the officers entered the home and encountered Defendant, the officers’ entry into the home was unlawful. Thus, the State failed to prove that the officers whom Defendant resisted were discharging or attempting to discharge an official duty at the time they encountered Defendant, see Sinclair, 191 N.C. App. at 489, 663 S.E.2d at 870, and the trial court erred by denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss.” Henderson Cty. v. Peacock, 2023 N.C. App. LEXIS 731 (Nov. 21, 2023).*
“Here, the record establishes that defendant consented to the search of his vehicle with the understanding that, if he refused, the detective would obtain a warrant and search the vehicle anyway, and that in the meantime the vehicle would be detained at the scene. We note that a suspect’s consent to search that is based on threatened action by the police is deemed voluntary only where there are valid legal grounds for the threatened action.” Here, there was nothing close to probable cause for defendant’s stop. The police had vague information from a CI but, essentially, what defendant did didn’t match anything a drug courier would do so there was zero corroboration [one could say it all could have disproved the CI’s tale, but maybe that’s going too far]. People v. Barner, 2023 NY Slip Op 05839, 2023 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5901 (4th Dept. Nov. 17, 2023).*
Posted inArrest or entry on arrest, Consent|Comments Off on NC: Officer who made illegal entry was not discharging “official duty” when he was assaulted
The affidavit for the warrant here did, in fact, show probable cause and nexus from the informant’s reports corroborated by observations of the officers. The lack of a success rate by the CI wasn’t as important when he was corroborated by a controlled buy from the premises. State v. Randolph, 2023 La. App. LEXIS 1998 (La. App. 4 Cir Nov. 20, 2023).
On the totality, the officers did not provide justification for handcuffing defendant and keeping him handcuffed after detaining him and his luggage after he got off a Trailways bus in Omaha. Defendant declined a search, and the officer said a dog sniff was going to occur. He was detained for a while and finally they got a warrant for his backpack. “The investigators may understandably be worried about attempted altercations or the like while conducting investigative stops and searches of travelers. But the Fourth Amendment does not permit the routine use of handcuffs as an unyielding matter of policy during an investigatory stop. Under this logic, ‘officers would be allowed to handcuff, frisk, and detain virtually every suspect they encounter, without regard to the nature of the crime, the behavior exhibited by the suspect, or the circumstances surrounding the alleged crime, under the pretext of officer safety. Terry does not permit such intrusive measures in the absence of any objective safety concerns.’ …” United States v. Onate, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 207215 (D. Neb. Nov. 20, 2023).*
The court declines to grant third-party standing in another’s cell phone, while defendant recognizes it is settled that he has no standing. People v. Banks, 2023 Cal. App. LEXIS 896 (2d Dist. Nov. 20, 2023).*
There was probable cause for the search of defendant’s tractor trailer without a warrant. United States v. Gutierrez, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 30842 (5th Cir. Nov. 20, 2023).*
The bodycam video of plaintiff’s altercation with two hospital security guards showed they were entitled to qualified immunity. Scott v. Harris. Bouvier v. City of Covington, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 30822 (11th Cir. Nov. 20, 2023).*
In excessive force cases, “it has recognized that officers often find it difficult to determine how the Fourth Amendment’s general reasonableness standard applies to the particular factual circumstances confronting them. See Ziglar, 582 U.S. at 151.” Thus, there’s qualified immunity. Omeish v. Kincaid, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 30403 (4th Cir. Nov. 15, 2023).*
“In sum, there is no genuine dispute that the officers had reasonable suspicion to detain Ometu during the first part of their investigation, and they acted reasonably in handcuffing him and attempting to transport him to Davenport’s apartment. After that, Ometu’s conduct provided the officers with probable cause to arrest. Accordingly, Ometu cannot show a constitutional violation, and Officers Day and Serna are entitled to qualified immunity, and hence summary judgment, on Ometu’s claims of unlawful seizure and false imprisonment.” Ometu v. City of San Antonio, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 205644 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 15, 2023).*
An officer sought a Temporary Extreme Risk Protection Order (TERPO) under NYS law for defendant’s allegedly pointing a gun at his alleged victims from a car. This is a civil remedy, and, here, it did not provide any protection under the Fourth Amendment or state constitution from unreasonable searches and seizures. “This order is overbroad and lacks particularity. It does not identify the specific offense for which the police have established probable cause, it does not describe the place to be searched and it does not specify the items to be seized by their relation to a designated crime …. While the application provides slightly more information it also lacks sufficient particularity to satisfy the requirements of CPL 690 and the Federal and State Constitutions.” It also did not incorporate other documents or facts to supply what’s necessary. People v. A.O., 2023 NY Slip Op 23356, 2023 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 20099 (Erie Co. Sept. 23, 2023).
Officers working the Kansas City Greyhound station had already had a dog sniff luggage. When defendant approached a bag that the dog had alerted on, they asked if he was carrying cash or drugs, which he denied. They asked if they could search it, and he said “Yeah. Search it.” Then he asked if he could go to the bathroom to brush his teeth. That concerned the officers that he’d attempt to flee or destroy evidence, so he could be handcuffed. United States v. Bonilla, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 30754 (8th Cir. Nov. 20, 2023).*
Posted inParticularity, Seizure|Comments Off on NY Erie Co.: Temporary Extreme Risk Protection Order didn’t satisfy 4A for criminal case
"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.
