The protective sweep didn’t require consent. Moreover, the argument wasn’t preserve below. State v. Mott, 2023-Ohio-2268 (12th Dist. July 3, 2023).*
Based on the totality, it was objectively reasonable to believe defendant was speeding when the officer decided to stop him. United States v. Thomas, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114278 (D.S.D. June 2, 2023).*
There was reasonable suspicion for defendant’s stop having crossed through the Tohono O’odham Nation in an area the CBP officer knew was regularly frequented by smugglers, in the officer’s 17 years experience there. United States v. Martinez, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114446 (D.Ariz. July 3, 2023).*
Defendant had been voluntarily in the precinct station on December 31st and he left after questioning. They got him back on January 1st and talked to him when he finally confessed. The second trip became custodial as it progressed. People v. Townsend, 2023 IL App (1st) 200911 (June 30, 2023).*
Geofence warrant issued in 2019 before there were any reported cases satisfied probable cause, particularity, and the good faith exception. Price v. Superior Court, 2023 Cal. App. LEXIS 505 (2d Dist. July 3, 2023):
Defendant being an unindicted fugitive using a false name still had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the place he was staying. This is different from the government’s authority involving convicted escapees. United States v. Cotto-Cruz, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113752 (D.P.R. June 29, 2023).
“Martinez’s consent to answer Deputy Wirthele’s questions [while still sitting in the patrol car] permitted him to extend the stop.” United States v. Martinez, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113756 (D.Neb. June 29, 2023).*
“Considering the totality of the circumstances, and in light of Deputy Wirthele’s considerable experience with drug trafficking investigations, the evidence supports the conclusion that there was reasonable suspicion to extend the traffic stop to wait for a drug dog. Defendants’ travel plans were odd and suspicious. Martinez initially said they left Fresno, California on February 1st, but later indicated they had left on February 3rd. Defendants also took a longer route than necessary to get to their destination by traveling through Lincoln, Nebraska. It was also unusual that Martinez did not know the city to which they were traveling, even though Deputy Wirthele provided the names of several cities in Kansas to refresh her memory. Neither Defendant knew exactly how long they would be in Kansas or what they would do there—other than go to a museum for Flores’ birthday, which was not for another month.” United States v. Martinez, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113417 (D.Neb. May 19, 2023).*
Defendant’s pickup was parked on the street in front of another man’s house that was searched with a warrant. His truck was searched too, but wasn’t mentioned in the warrant. “We find the search of the truck was authorized by the search warrant. Given where the vehicle was found, we agree that it was on the property to be searched, and law enforcement’s intelligence regarding activity at the residence gave them reason to believe that appellant’s vehicle was associated with not only the premises but also with the targets of the search.” State v. Cottrell, 2023-Ohio-2240, 2023 Ohio App. LEXIS 2243 (5th Dist. June 29, 2023).
Search warrant for premises that permitted the search of any persons found there was overbroad. Search of defendant was void. People v. Montgomery, 2023 NY Slip Op 03606, 2023 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3644 (4th Dept. June 30, 2023).
Defendant’s parole search was justified and reasonable. People v Mcmillan, 2023 NY Slip Op 03620, 2023 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3654 (4th Dept. June 30, 2023).*
Defendant had the burden of pleading and proving his reasonable expectation of privacy in the place searched to have standing. United States v. Cowan, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113284 (M.D. Tenn. June 30, 2023).*
Plaintiff’s suit in federal court to cause state court to apply the exclusionary rule in state court is barred by Younger and Rooker/Feldman. Chappel v. Adams Cnty. Child.’s Servs., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112877 (S.D. Ohio May 19, 2023).
Defendant’s appeal forfeited the issue of the validity of the search warrant by not citing to anything in the appeal brief. On the merits, dealt with first, he’d lose anyway. People v. Cummings, 2023 IL App (1st) 220520, 2023 Ill. App. LEXIS 243 (June 30, 2023).*
The normal deadlines for filing a motion to suppress don’t apply when there’s a retrial. The court can set reasonable deadlines. Zadeh v. State, 2023 Md. App. LEXIS 423 (June 29, 2023).*
“Here, the factual allegations contained in the two affidavits attached to the warrant application provided probable cause to believe that defendant was operating a drug business out of his residence based on the observations of a confidential informant (CI) and surveillance conducted by the [police] …. Contrary to defendant’s contention, the reliability of the CI was established by the statement of one of the officers that the CI had given credible and accurate information in the past ….” Defendant’s staleness claim is unpreserved. People v Baez, | 2023 NY Slip Op 03651, 2023 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3576 (4th Dept. June 30, 2023).*
Defendant’s stop was unreasonably extended without reasonable suspicion. A DL and EPIC check on both driver and passenger came up clean, and the stop should have ended then. Nervousness alone wasn’t enough. United States v. Funk, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112761 (D.Mont. June 29, 2023).*
“So, Sgt. McGill needed something more than O’Meara’s nervousness to have reasonable suspicion that O’Meara was committing drug crimes. Reasonable suspicion is a low bar. … It ‘requires only that the officer have a ‘moderate chance’ of finding evidence of illegality on further investigation.’” Defendant was also slow to answer questions like he was making it up as he was going along. United States v. O’Meara, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112768 (N.D. Ohio June 28, 2023).*
The search warrant failed to properly identify the cell phone to be searched, and the motion to suppress is granted. People v. Jackson, 2023 NY Slip Op 50640(U), 2023 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3126, 2023 NYLJ LEXIS 1575 (Kings Co. June 26, 2023) (unpublished).*
Plaintiff showed enough to go to discovery on an FTCA claim, but not a Bivens claim against individual officers who are dismissed out. Quiñonez v. United States, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112706 (N.D. Cal. June 29, 2023).*
“No viable Takings Clause claim occurs when property has been disturbed by a lawful search warrant. See AmeriSource Corp. v. United States, 525 F.3d 1149, 1154 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (‘so long as the government’s exercise of authority was pursuant to some power other than eminent domain, then the plaintiff has failed to state a claim for compensation under the Fifth Amendment’) (citing Bennis, 516 U.S. at 453). Moreover, BPD’s alleged negligent destruction of the Property does not satisfy the ‘taken for public use’ element of a Takings Clause claim. …” Lemongas Enter., Inc. v. City of Bakersfield, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112389 (E.D. Cal. June 29, 2023).
“Next, while we normally would address whether the State’s acquisition of Figueroa-Sanabria’s historical CSLI was a warrantless Fourth Amendment search, and if so, whether the exclusionary rule applies, we need not reach these issues to resolve this case. That is because the allegedly erroneous introduction of the CSLI evidence is harmless.” Figueroa-Sanabria v. State, 2023 Fla. LEXIS 978 (June 29, 2023).*
Defendant’s interaction with the police was consensual. United States v. Smith, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 16530 (5th Cir. June 29, 2023).*
Officers responding to a 911 call were told there was an unsecured AR-15 in the house. The entry to retrieve it was reasonable, and Caniglia v. Strom is distinguishable. State v. Pine, 2023-Ohio-2191, 2023 Ohio App. LEXIS 2166 (4th Dist. June 24, 2023).
“There is thus nothing in Baker’s brief exchange with Brian to suggest that a reasonable person in Almonte-Polanco’s position would have felt coerced to stay as a result of this exchange.” United States v. Almonte-Polanco, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 16445 (2d Cir. June 29, 2023).*
Any delay of the stop here while waiting for the drug dog was caused by the occupants. State v. Bowen, 2023-Ohio-2201 (3d Dist. June 29, 2023).*
Defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim for defense counsel not filing a Franks motion fails because he doesn’t show he’d possibly prevail. United States v. Thompson, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112256 (D. Nev. June 28, 2023).*
The state had a warrant for updates every 15 minutes of two Facebook accounts. That was virtually a wiretap, and the state wiretapping law applies. Facebook, Inc. v. State, 2023 N.J. LEXIS 700 (June 29, 2023). From the syllabus:
Posted inSocial media warrants|Comments Off on NJ: SW for realtime updates from a Facebook account was a virtual wiretap that had to comply with state wiretap law
A 911 call about a suspected kidnapping led to a stop found valid under Naverette. Small v. State, 2023 Tex. App. LEXIS 4610 (Tex. App. – Houston (1st Dist.) June 29, 2023)* (unpublished)
“These events establish probable cause, especially when considered with the events from a week prior. The Affidavit describes a known drug runner calling a known drug dealer right before arriving at and leaving Robelin’s house—leaving a reasonable officer to conclude that evidence of drug crimes would be found there.” United States v. Robelin, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111536 (E.D. Mich. June 28, 2023).*
The search of the fanny pack here was reasonable under inventory. United States v. Schley, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111712 (W.D. Wash. June 26, 2023).*
A general Franks challenge fails for a lack of an offer of proof that probable cause would be lacking. He complains of “inconsistencies” and “embellishments” and omissions. “It is difficult to determine from his brief which particular omissions he contends should have been included in the affidavit. Nor does appellant explain in his brief how probable cause is lacking with any missing information added to the affidavit.” Edwards v. State, 2023 Tex. App. LEXIS 4615 (Tex. App. – Houston (14th Dist. June 29, 2023).*
Relying on a CI without backing him up failed to show probable cause. “With these guiding principles in mind, the undersigned concludes the search warrant affidavit here did not provide a substantial basis for finding probable cause to believe narcotics and firearms would be found in the defendant’s motel room. The substantive core of the affidavit was the information provided by the confidential informant, but the affidavit did not articulate sufficiently the informant’s reliability, veracity, or basis of knowledge.” No good faith exception either. United States v. Prewitt, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111518 (M.D.Ala. May 12, 2023), adopted June 28, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111442 (M.D. Ala. June 28, 2023) (the government filed no objections to the R&R).
Plaintiff’s cars were seized in the District of North Dakota in a criminal investigation and then turned over to an impound lot that sold them. He had a claim for a taking, but not under Rule 41(g). (The appeal was to the Eighth Circuit which transferred it to the Federal Circuit.) Jenkins v. United States, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 16296 (Fed. Cir. June 28, 2023).
“Akula next argues that any reference to the execution of a search warrant should be excluded ‘because it leads the jury to believe a foregone conclusion that the government had overwhelming evidence.’ Akula provides no authority in support of this request, nor does he explain how it would be unduly prejudicial. Because this request is overbroad, the Court will deny it without prejudice.” United States v. Akula, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111137 (E.D. La. June 28, 2023).*
“If six law enforcement officers testify credibly to a story that doesn’t make sense, is the Court bound to accept that testimony? That’s the question facing the Court on Defendant’s motion to suppress. Because the Court has no basis to call those law enforcement officers liars other than its own misgivings, it concludes that it is so bound. Defendant’s motion will be denied.” United States v. Randle, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111347 (N.D. Ind. June 28, 2023).
Defendant’s arrest by the FBI on a detainer when he was released by the Navajo Nation Police from a tribal jail was lawful and reasonable and didn’t violate a treaty with the Navajo Nation. United States v. Peshlakai, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111275 (D.N.M. June 28, 2023).*
Plaintiff was searched inside his underwear. Because he couldn’t identify which of two officers did it, both prevail for his failure to state a claim. McKay v. Krimmel, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 16332 (3d Cir. June 28, 2023).*
The statement that defendant had a stolen truck on his property when it was, in fact, parked just over the property line on his father’s property was not recklessly false for Franks. United States v. Siegert, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111204 (W.D. Tex. June 28, 2023).*
Virginia v. Moore does not require that an arresting officer personally have seen the act that led to the arrest outside the officer’s jurisdiction as long as there was probable cause. State v. Barton, 2023 Mo. LEXIS 183 (June 27, 2023).
Officers watching in house with a lot of short term visitors stopped one of those departing and found out it was a gambling house with slot machines. A search warrant was obtained and executed. The officer’s observations and the report from the guests was probable cause. State v. Syed, 2023-Ohio-2154 (9th Dist. June 28, 2023).*
The affidavit for search warrant wasn’t stale. It alleged defendant’s drug operation was ongoing. United States v. Miranda-Ornelas, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110461 (D. Neb. May 18, 2023).*
An excessive force claim against a school resource officer is treated as excessive force by a law enforcement officer, not a school administrator. Heard v. Thomas, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 16280 (6th Cir. June 26, 2023).*
Recognizing that Byrd holds that a person can have standing in a vehicle owned and maybe even operated by another: “Does an employee retain standing to contest a search or seizure in his work vehicle several days after he was arrested and after the vehicle was returned to his employer? Possibly. In this case, however, we hold that Appellant has not met his burden to establish a reasonable expectation of privacy as would confer standing.” Defendant had the burden of establishing standing, but he was in custody, and the employer had the truck back. King v. State, 2023 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 481 (June 28, 2023):
Posted inStanding, Warrant execution|Comments Off on TX: Def had no REP in work truck searched by owner at police request three days after his arrest and expiration of SW
Defendant put a fanny pack in a trash can when the police were around. Without evidence he intended to retrieve it, it is treated as abandoned property that he has no standing in. United States v. Moffitt, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110460 (D.Vt. June 27, 2023).
Defendant didn’t preserve his Franks challenge for a conditional plea so it’s waived. United States v. McCawley, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 16139 (6th Cir. June 26, 2023).*
Defendant didn’t preserve his Fourth Amendment claim for appeal. United States v. Willis, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 16238 (5th Cir. June 27, 2023).*
“Smith’s arguments against Officer Hartman’s affidavit improperly analyze the pieces of information in isolation, failing to consider the totality of the circumstances and to account for how the statements of CS1, CS2, and Smiles reinforce each other. More importantly, Smith does not discuss the corroboration provided by the police’s independent investigation. Reviewed properly, Officer Hartman’s probable cause affidavit contained statements from two confidential sources, who were familiar with the local drug culture and who provided information indicating Saunders was dealing heroin, Smith was involved, and Smith’s residence was sometimes used for drug-related activities.” United States v. Smith, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110322 (W.D. Mo. June 27, 2023).*
Posted inAbandonment, Probable cause, Waiver|Comments Off on D.Vt.: Hiding a fanny pack in a trash can from the police was abandonment without evidence of intent to recover it
A claim of excessive force during an arrest by a federal agent does not state a new type of Bivens claim, and it can proceed. Snowden v. Henning, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 16221 (7th Cir. June 27, 2023). (This was under submission since November 2021.)
The stop for not signaling lane movement soon enough was reasonable. Anderson v. State, 2023 WY 65, 2023 Wyo. LEXIS 66 (June 26, 2023).*
Defendant was released from jail, gets picked up by the Chicago PD, taken to an interrogation room, and questioned about a murder. He was not under arrest, knew it, and agreed to cooperate at least until it become clear he wasn’t free to leave. People v. Mrdjenovich, 2023 IL App (1st) 191699, 2023 Ill. App. LEXIS 229 (June 27, 2023).*
“Here, the state appellate court could not determine whether a motion to suppress would have been successful based on the record before it, but the appellate court, in reviewing the evidence presented at trial, found no basis that such a motion would have succeeded.” Therefore, 2255 petitioner doesn’t show that the state court’s conclusion there was no ineffective assistance of counsel was reasonable. Lawson v. Warden, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110252 (S.D. Ohio June 26, 2023).*
Defendant’s refusal to consent to taking a DNA swab in a rape investigation is admissible at trial. Post-arrest cheek swabs do not violate the Fourth Amendment because they are accepted police booking and jailing procedures, similar to fingerprinting and photographing. Johnson v. State, 2023 Ga. App. LEXIS 332 (June 27, 2023).
Defendant’s Franks and lack of probable cause challenges fail. The investigators used video surveillance and LPR information to clearly put defendant and his car near the scene of the bank robbery about the time it happened and then leaving the bank. A warrant was issued for his car and his home. The really minor mistakes were not material to the finding of probable cause, and the officer’s testimony and candidness during hearing testimony impressed the suppression judge. The motion to suppress was properly denied. United States v. Chaney, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 16151 (10th Cir. June 27, 2023).* (An interesting investigation.)
The officer had information from a CI that defendant would be in one of two cars going to a location for a meth deal. He saw one car with defendant in it and followed it. Defendant’s arm and hand gestures suggested to him that defendant would flee, but he didn’t before the stop. That added to reasonable suspicion. Chapman v. State, 2023 Ga. App. LEXIS 328 (June 27, 2023).*
When defendant’s backpack was abandoned, that included sealed packages inside it. State v. Fernandez, 2023 Mo. App. LEXIS 461 (June 27, 2023).
“Nonetheless, the Durham Court’s general statement, that having a roommate does not convert a single-family house into a multi-unit dwelling, is clearly the circumstance presented in the instant case. The Court finds that law enforcement’s search and seizure of property from Mr. Smelko’s rented rooms was properly within the scope of the search warrant for 524 Franklin Street. As such, there was no violation of Mr. Smelko’s Fourth Amendment rights.” United States v. Smelko, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109985 (W.D. Pa. June 22, 2023).*
The state court’s alleged faulty reasoning is not a reason to depart from the Stone bar. Douglas v. McCarthy, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109358 (N.D. N.Y. June 26, 2023).*
Defendant consented to a search of her person. State v. Rath, 2023-Ohio-2118 (11th Dist. June 26, 2023).
Overtinted windows justified the stop. United States v. Ybarra, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109944 (N.D. Cal. May 3, 2023).*
After defendant was indicted a search warrant for bodily standards was sought from the metropolitan court. It didn’t lose jurisdiction for a search warrant, even in a case pending in a “higher” trial court. “[P]ost-indictment warrants are lawful in New Mexico, provided all other requirements for the issuance of a search warrant are met.” It also did not violate due process. State v. Chavez, 2023 N.M. App. LEXIS 44 (June 26, 2023):
The police community caretaking function has a long and important history that goes back nearly 800 years. But, seeing defendant parked in the snow with the engine running and apparently asleep, opening his car door to check on him was unreasonable. That led to an altercation. “Judged by these standards, Officer Zolnai unreasonably seized and searched Morgan when, without warning, he opened Morgan’s car door to check on him. Even viewing the record in the light most favorable to the officer, as we must in the context of a district court’s denial of a suppression motion, United States v. Coffee, 434 F.3d 887, 892 (6th Cir. 2006), the officer’s actions violated the Fourth Amendment.” United States v. Morgan, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 16039 (6th Cir. June 26, 2023).
“In addition, evidence procured via a pole camera confirmed that Allison lived at the residence and went back and forth throughout the day between that residence and an apartment complex where he sold drugs. Even accepting, for the sake of argument, Allison’s contention that he was not actually living at the residence as a result of a domestic dispute, we discern no clear error in the district court’s finding by a preponderance of the evidence that Allison maintained a premises for the purpose of drug distribution.” United States v. Allison, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 16007 (4th Cir. June 26, 2023).*
The district court credited the officers that they found the firearm when executing the warrant. United States v. Maultsby, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 16019 (4th Cir. June 26, 2023).*
Posted inCommunity caretaking function, Nexus|Comments Off on CA6: Opening car door without warning exceeded community caretaking function
"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.
