Defendant’s pleading only the state constitution waived the Fourth Amendment claim. State v. Bell, 2023 Ida. LEXIS 95 (Aug. 15, 2023).
Defendant complained trial counsel was ineffective for not challenging a search of house that was allegedly burglarized and defendant’s DNA was found inside linking him to the crime. Defense counsel ultimately concluded that defendant could not prevail. (The appellate court doesn’t even mention standing, but that would have been the cleaner way to decide it: no standing in a place one burglarizes.) McCoy v. State, 2023 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 298 (Aug. 15, 2023).*
The CI made admissions against penal interest. “And the controlled buys provided more than enough corroboration to render CI’s statements sufficient to establish probable cause.” United States v. Sylvestre, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 21288 (1st Cir. Aug. 15, 2023).*
The search of defendant’s cell phone at the border was reasonable. The court will not apply Riley to border searches. Malik v. United States Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 21307 (5th Cir. Aug. 15, 2023).
“The undersigned concludes that Defendant abandoned the Hummer and thus had no expectation of privacy as to the vehicle. Defendant crashed the Hummer into another vehicle in front of 1938 South Newton, left the keys in the ignition, and fled on foot, thus abandoning the Hummer and relinquishing any expectation of privacy of the vehicle.” United States v. Woodrow, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142377 (W.D. Mo. July 21, 2023),* adopted, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 140250 (W.D. Mo. Aug. 11, 2023).*
“The encounter, however, transformed into a Terry stop when Officer Williams asked Pheap if he could search his pockets and instructed him to turn around and keep his hands up. Such an investigatory stop is constitutionally sound so long as Officer Williams had reasonable suspicion—‘a particularized and objective basis for suspecting [Pheap] of criminal activity based on specific and articulable facts[.]’ Dorsey, 517 F.3d at 395. … Considering the totality of the circumstances, Officer Williams had reasonable suspicion to suspect Pheap of criminal activity.” Pheap v. City of Knoxville, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142439 (E.D. Tenn. Aug. 15, 2023).*
The tracking warrant provided for tracking of the car, but did not mention installing the tracker. The court finds the good faith exception applies. United States v. Gonzalez, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142057 (D.Minn. Aug. 15, 2023).
There was probable cause for defendant’s stop and BAC test. Allen v. Commonwealth, 2023 Va. App. LEXIS 550 (Aug. 15, 2023).*
In this Maryland county, motions to suppress are done during trial in juvenile court, but it still should have been in a pretrial motion. A post-conviction petition is how this will be addressed. In re C.G., 2023 Md. App. LEXIS 541 (Aug. 14, 2023).*
“Since there is no reasonable probability the motion to suppress the inventory search of Mr. Honzu’s vehicle would have been granted, defense counsel were not ineffective for failing to file a motion to suppress on those grounds.” State v. Honzu, 2023-Ohio-2831, 2023 Ohio App. LEXIS 2793 (11th Dist. Aug. 14, 2023).*
“Anthony argues that Gottschalk used excessive force when he sprayed him with OC spray, which the court now refers to as pepper spray. Applying the Graham factors and considering the totality of the circumstances, the court concludes that a reasonable jury could not find that Gottschalk’s use of pepper spray was objectively unreasonable.” Anthony v. City of Oklahoma City, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 141308 (W.D.Okla. Aug. 14, 2023).*
A jury could conclude the use of force here was unreasonable. Clerkley v. City of Oklahoma City, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 141309 (W.D.Okla. Aug. 14, 2023).*
The cell phone search was valid when it happened, but the law changed. The search was valid under Davis’s good faith exception. United States v. Berrios, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 141331 (N.D.Ill. Aug. 14, 2023).*
Defendant’s temporary tag was not clearly visible at the time of the stop, and that justified it. United States v. James, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 141701 (D.Kan. Aug. 14, 2023).*
The consent for defendant’s blood draw was specific and unlimited. United States v. Aguirre, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 141737 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2023).*
Defendant showed no standing to contest this anticipatory warrant for mailed drugs. United States v. Fontanez, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 141256 (D.Mass. Aug. 11, 2023).*
Plaintiff’s pro se case against the police department that searched and arrested was four years out of time and barred by the fact the police department was not a “person.” Patrick v. Kingston Police Dep’t, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 20958 (3d Cir. Aug. 11, 2023).*
Expert opinions on reasonableness of force are usually inadmissible, citing several cases. Ball-Bey v. Chandler, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 140048 (E.D. Mo. Aug. 10, 2023).*
The indisputable connection between guns and drugs made this patdown reasonable. United States v. Harris, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 20984 (4th Cir. Aug. 11, 2023).*
The stop was not coercive and was reasonable. Yarofalchuw v. Cabrera, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 141086 (N. Mar. Isl. Aug. 11, 2023).*
Defendant consented to giving up the passcode to his phone. The court notes in n.2 that Cellebrite can crack the passcodes. United States v. Frey, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 141180 n.2 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 14, 2023).
Defendant was reasonably denied his second amended 2255 over a search issue where he didn’t even show standing underlying the search. Duerson v. United States, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 21079 (6th Cir. Aug. 11, 2023).*
There was reasonable suspicion for the CBP stop on a rural road in Vermont near the border where the RCMP warned three people were on foot coming that way and there was no apparent reason for this rented vehicle to be on a dead end local road. United States v. Cruz-Castelazo, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 140021 (D.Vt. Aug. 11, 2023).*
“In light of the Government’s representation that it will not introduce in its case-in-chief at trial evidence obtained as a result of the execution of the search warrant for Defendant’s cell phone, Defendant’s motion to suppress such evidence is moot.” United States v. Solomon, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 140030 (D.Minn. Aug. 11, 2023).*
Officers had reasonable suspicion defendant was in the truck they stopped. United States v. Smith, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 20941 (8th Cir. Aug. 11, 2023).*
Defendant’s probation Fourth Amendment waiver was still valid by law despite the fact he hadn’t signed the form. United States v. Crawford, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 140719 (S.D.Ga. July 7, 2023), adopted, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139645 (S.D. Ga. Aug. 10, 2023).
Airbnb regulations that require the numbers of people who can stay in a place is not a search. Arora v. New York City Mayor’s Off. of Special Enforcement, 2023 NY Slip Op 32741(U). 2023 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 4031 (N.Y.Co. Aug. 8, 2023).*
Defendant’s traffic stop was valid, and then the officer smelled marijuana. United States v. Singleton, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 140435 (D.Neb. July 24, 2023);* United States v. Kitchen, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 141067 (S.D. Iowa Aug. 11, 2023).*
Defendant’s encounter was consensual considering all the factors. United States v. Salcido, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 140488 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 2023).*
Defendant argues against reasonable suspicion by breaking it down to individual factors, but collectively there was. K.W. v. State, 2023 Ind. App. LEXIS 232 (Aug. 11, 2023).*
“Many of Plaintiff’s alleged violations attack the procedures used to investigate and charge him, the evidence used to convict him, as well as the constitutionality of the first-degree murder statute under which he was convicted. Success on some of these claims would necessarily imply the invalidity of Plaintiff’s conviction. Because the conviction has not been invalidated, these claims are barred by Heck and should be dismissed without prejudice.” Weimer v. Smith, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139740 (W.D.Okla. June 28, 2023).*
Officer’s shooting a dog growling and coming at him was reasonable under the circumstances. Buschmann v. Kan. City Bd. of Police Comm’rs, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 20789 (8th Cir. Aug. 10, 2023).*
“Here, Burroughs affirmatively avoided crashing into any other cars and was in the process of complying with Mannella’s commands. [¶] In the factual setting in which deadly force was used, a reasonable officer in Mannella’s position would not have had reason to believe that Burroughs posed a threat of imminent harm. We therefore affirm the district court’s decision that Mannella’s use of deadly force was unreasonable and violated Burroughs’s Fourth Amendment rights.” Raimey v. City of Niles, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 20849 (6th Cir. Aug. 10, 2023).*
Plaintiff can’t overcome defendants’ qualified immunity claim that there’s no similar case out there showing the officers exceeding the bounds of reasonableness in the use of force. Modacure v. Short, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 20883 (5th Cir. Aug. 10, 2023).*
It was clearly established that plaintiff’s driving his car at officers justified use of deadly force on him. Hines v. Lowndes Cnty., 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 20892 (5th Cir. Aug. 10, 2023).*
Defendant was a suspect in a vehicular homicide. Her car with pedestrian damage was found parked in the driveway of her house at 207 Port Drive in Hamilton County. There was a typo on the street number despite the warrant and affidavit being typed in the car outside for 209 Port Drive. The city wasn’t listed, but there was proof there was only one Port Drive in the county. The key was the car in the driveway, and that was particularly described enough, despite the argument the car could have been moved. The officer saw the car and the house, and the correct place was searched. State v. Hinds, 2023 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 293 (Aug. 11, 2023).
Information in the affidavit for warrant about the exact owner(s) of the property to be searched was incorrect, but it wasn’t intentional, reckless, or material to probable cause. “The Seventh Circuit has instructed that the requirement that a search warrant affidavit must not include false statement ‘does not mean that every fact in the affidavit must turn out to be correct.’” The officer relied on the assessor’s records. Finally, it wasn’t even material. United States v. Phelps, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 140228 (S.D. Ind. Aug. 11, 2023).*
Excluding the challenged facts, there still was probable cause for the warrant. United States v. Locket, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139857 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 10, 2023).*
Defendant was a marijuana dispensary security guard accused of misconduct with the product. There was probable cause for his arrest on state law of maintaining a drug premises, but the good faith exception applied anyway. United States v. Barrera, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139996 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 7, 2023).*
Posted inFranks doctrine, Particularity, Probable cause|Comments Off on TN: Typo of street number of location of car to be searched could be overlooked when the car was still parked
“More to the point, however, is the irrelevance of any officer negligence in this habeas corpus case. Stone v. Powell bars habeas corpus consideration of Fourth Amendment claims as a basis for habeas relief. There is no ‘inadvertent negligence’ exception to Powell. The Report does not discuss Petitioner’s inadvertent negligence theory because the Supreme Court has never recognized an ‘inadvertent negligence’ exception to Powell.” Moore v. Warden, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139402 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 9, 2023).*
The affidavit for warrant shows nexus, and the good faith exception applies. United States v. Fulcar, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139463 (D.Mass. Aug. 10, 2023).*
“I find that Deputy Tweten had reasonable suspicion to conduct the Terry stop based on a suspected traffic violation—the Charger’s windows were illegally tinted. Even though the tint of the Charger’s widows was ultimately found to be legal, Deputy Tweten’s mistake was objectively reasonable.” United States v. Smith, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139685 (N.D. Iowa July 12, 2023),* adopted 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138658 (N.D. Iowa Aug. 9, 2023).*
The cell phone warrant sought all information on it about a 48 hour period without limitation, and it was vague and overbroad. “The warrant contained no language incorporating any other documents or facts. Significantly, the search of the phone was not restricted by reference to any particular crime. Thus, the search warrant failed to meet the particularity requirement and left discretion of the search to the executing officers …. While the search warrant application contained information about the crime and defendant’s possession of the phone during the crime, the search warrant application was not incorporated into the search warrant and therefore ‘does not save the warrant from its facial invalidity.’” People v. Saeli, 2023 NY Slip Op 04268, 2023 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4301 (4th Dept. Aug. 11, 2023).
The government got a warrant to get defendant’s CSLI. He’s wrong on that. United States v. Adepoju, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139468 (D.Mass. Aug. 10, 2023).*
“Relying on a document produced by the Government during discovery in which Roberts outlined various complaints received about Reardon between April and June 2017 and in November 2017, Reardon argued that the complaints were not recent enough to justify the phrasing ‘over the past several months.’” This was not a Franks violation. United States v. Reardon, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 20832 (4th Cir. Aug. 10, 2023).*
The University’s Covid-19 testing does not violate the Fourth Amendment. Roman Cath. Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, 141 S. Ct. 63, 67, 208 L. Ed. 2d 206 (2020) (“Stemming the spread of COVID-19 is a compelling interest.”); Klaassen v. Trs. of Ind. Univ., 7 F.4th 592, 593-94 (7th Cir. 2021) (finding mandatory vaccination or weekly testing a reasonable condition of enrollment at a university). Plaintiff also alleged it was a taking of his DNA, but it surely wasn’t. Homer v. Pa. State Univ., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139794 (W.D.Pa. Aug. 10, 2023).
Officers responded to a silent alarm at a bank and found only one car in the lot, and the occupants were almost completely uncooperative. After they refused to cooperate, getting them out of the car wasn’t easy. Pulling a gun at one point was justified. Jones v. Long, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 20759 (6th Cir. Aug. 9, 2023).*
“Here, it is undisputed that Brown had his hands up. And we have no doubt that shooting into the car posed a substantial risk of serious bodily harm to him. But the driver had just led police on a reckless, high-speed chase, which involved swerving into oncoming traffic, hitting a police car, and resisting efforts to stop the car by other means. By the time officers started shooting, the car had run over one officer’s legs and was headed toward others. All things considered, officers acted reasonably in using deadly force, and the district court didn’t err in granting summary judgment.” Estate of Brown v. West, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 20782 (8th Cir. Aug. 10, 2023).*
Despite the criminal charges being dropped because city officers were outside their jurisdiction, the whole matter was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment because reasonableness doesn’t depend on state law violations. Kosiba v. Kleine, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139379 (D. Neb. Aug. 10, 2023).
“Here, Trooper Powell testified to six factors that contributed to his suspicion before he extended the traffic stop by asking Defendant to exit his vehicle. These factors amounted to reasonable suspicion when considered in totality. Accordingly, because Trooper Powell had reasonable suspicion of criminal activity before he deviated from the traffic-based mission of the stop, no Fourth Amendment violation occurred, and the evidence resulting from the stop will not be suppressed.” Extending the stop 104 minutes for the drug dog was reasonable. United States v. Wilkenson, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139141 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 9, 2023).*
Defendant wasn’t blocked in and wasn’t seized. He still had the ability to avoid the encounter, which he did by fleeing. United States v. Zamora, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139105 (D. Mont. Aug. 9, 2023).*
Posted inReasonable suspicion, Seizure|Comments Off on D.Neb.: Admitted state law jurisdiction violation still not 4A unreasonable
Alleged false alerts of a drug dog may not be at all because the dog could have smelled residual odor of drugs from some other time. United States v. Manson, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138590 (D. Conn. Aug. 9, 2023) (“As the Supreme Court noted in Harris, a false alert may mean simply that the dog ‘smelled the residual odor of drugs previously in’ the location and thus ‘may not have made a mistake at all.’ 568 U.S. at 245-46.”).
Defendant’s motion to reconsider denial of his motion to suppress can’t simply reargue grounds already advanced and disposted of. United States v. Tsatenawa, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138547 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 8, 2023).*
Defendant’s claim that the search warrant for another person’s house that he has no connection to would show potential outrageous governmental conduct as to him was too tenuous to even get discovery of the papers for that warrant. He was also detained on reasonable suspicion when he showed up there during the search. United States v. Collins, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138550 (N.D. Fla. Aug. 4, 2023).*
Posted inPrivileges, Warrant execution|Comments Off on Kansas Reflector: In Marion County newspaper raid, a grim threat to Kansans’ First Amendment rights
Defendant confessed to his wife by text message to molestation of his nephew. Despite her consenting to turn it over to the police, he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the message and marital privilege still applied. People v. Lucas, 2023 NY Slip Op 23246, 2023 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3980 (Albany Co. Aug. 8, 2023).
Even if defense counsel didn’t read the affidavit for search warrant, defendant isn’t entitled to relief without showing that he would have prevailed on a motion to suppress. Martre v. Watson, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 20594 (6th Cir. Aug. 8, 2023).*
Defendant claims an alleged chain of custody violation is a suppression issue, but it’s not. United States v. Tuttle, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138187 (D. Neb. Aug. 7, 2023).
There is no basis for concluding that the magistrate was misled in the search warrant affidavit. United States v. Turner, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 20674 (2d Cir. Aug. 9, 2023).*
Less than six seconds between announcement and entry at 5 am violated the state constitutional guarantee for announcement before entry. Defendant was not known to ever be violent. State v. Nieves, 2023 N.J. Super. LEXIS 84 (Aug. 9, 2023):
A reasonable mistake by dispatch in reporting on an arrest warrant doesn’t violate the Fourth Amendment. Under Heien, “Reasonability is not equivalent to perfection, and so the Fourth Amendment allows for officials to make some mistakes, giving them ‘fair leeway for enforcing the law in the community’s protection.’” United States v. Nomee, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138223 (D. Mont. Aug. 8, 2023). Compare AP via ADG: Texas police officer holds innocent Arkansas family at gunpoint after making typo while running plates. Nothing about the lack of a cactus on the license plate.
There was reasonable suspicion for defendant’s stop, so the defense claim of pretext fails. United States v. Owens, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138286 (D. Mont. Aug. 8, 2023).*
New York provides adequate procedures to challenge alleged illegal searches. Wingate v. Titus, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138000 (E.D. N.Y. Aug. 8, 2023).*
2255 petitioner’s seeking clarification of his Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights was barred as a successor petition. United States v. Datta, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138193 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 3, 2023).*
Posted inReasonable suspicion, Reasonableness|Comments Off on D.Mont.: Dispatch’s reasonable mistake in reporting on arrest warrant doesn’t violate 4A
The district court’s nondisclosure order under the Stored Communications Act to Twitter’s search warrant account holder was a reasonable restriction on free speech to prevent destruction of evidence or other feared actions. The order was limited to 180 days and could be extended another 180 days. Also, Twitter had no right to refuse to comply with the warrant while litigating the warrant. The contempt sanction for failure to timely comply is also affirmed, In re Sealed Case, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 20733 (D.C.Cir. Aug. 9, 2023):
OH10 finds that medical records are sufficiently analogous to CSLI that there is a reasonable expectation of privacy and a search warrant, not a subpoena, is required. State v. Rogers, 2023-Ohio-2749, 2023 Ohio App. LEXIS 2707 (10th Dist. Aug. 8, 2023).
The stop was concededly justified. The frisk was based on reasonable suspicion. United States v. Riley, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137867 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 8, 2023).*
Defendant’s driving justified the stop, and answers to questions to him from the officer didn’t readily dispel whether he was under the influence. The stop was reasonably extended for questioning. State v. Bodenhamer, 2023 Mo. App. LEXIS 573 (Aug. 8, 2023).*
"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.
