Prison email to family members is protected by the First Amendment. “Just as the Fourth Amendment protects against searches by technology unknown in the 18th century, see Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27, 34-38 (2001), the First Amendment protects correspondence transmitted by means developed in the 20th or 21st centuries.” Benning v. Comm’r, Ga. Dep’t of Corr., 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 15851 (11th Cir. June 23, 2023).
“Plaintiff’s allegations and the written notice provided to plaintiffs make clear that they received due process before the City entered their property to abate a nuisance. Plaintiffs have not established that the individual defendants’ entry into their backyard constituted a search under the Fourth Amendment, and plaintiffs have not alleged facts suggesting that defendants violated the Fourth Amendment. For similar reasons, the removal of personal property from plaintiffs’ backyard to abate a public nuisance does not constitute a violation of the Takings Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. See Keystone Bituminous Coal Ass’n v. DeBenedictis, 480 U.S. 470, 491 (1987). “[T]he government owes a landowner no compensation for requiring him to abate a nuisance on his property, because he never had a right to engage in the nuisance in the first place.” Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, 141 S. Ct. 2063, 2079 (2021).” Tate v. City of Bartlesville, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108525 (N.D. Okla. June 23, 2023).*
Alleged sexual assault by a TSA officer was cognizable under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Leuthauser v. United States, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 15985 (9th Cir. June 26, 2023) (following other circuits).*
A bank employee saw a van parked on the bank’s lot that had been there overnight. Officers responded and saw an assault rifle in the passenger compartment. “Around 12:30 [p.m.], without knocking or announcing their presence, Lambert and Wagner pulled the handle on the slightly ajar side door to the back of the van. The door suddenly opened. Startled, the officers drew their guns. They did not see anyone inside the van but noticed more gun cases. But combined with what they had seen in the front seat, the officers felt these additional guns in an abandoned, and unsecure, vehicle presented a public safety concern.” The entry into the van was justified under the community caretaking function. United States v. Treisman, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 15831 (4th Cir. June 23, 2023).
“For the reasons explained in this opinion, we conclude that the trooper was permitted to ask Duty if there were drugs in his vehicle as long as the trooper possessed reasonable suspicion of criminality. We further conclude that the trooper did, in fact, possess reasonable suspicion of criminality. We therefore affirm the district court’s denial of Duty’s motion to suppress.” Duty v. State, 2023 Alas. App. LEXIS 75 (June 23, 2023).*
The totality of circumstances shows that defendant consented to the officer’s search for packages in his place that resulted in firearm parts being found. United States v. Williams, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108658 (D.V.I. June 23, 2023).*
Posted inCommunity caretaking function, Consent, Reasonable suspicion|Comments Off on CA4: Search of unlocked van with door ajar left overnight on bank parking lot with visible assault rifle was reasonable under community caretaking function
Law enforcement officers don’t have to corroborate CIs by doing controlled buys or traffic stops of the target. “However, in reviewing a search warrant for probable cause, a court is ‘to look holistically at what the affidavit does show, instead of focusing on what the affidavit does not contain, or the flaws of each individual component of the affidavit.’ …” United States v. Burrus, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108810 (W.D. Tenn. May 3, 2023).
The Greyhound station in Detroit is subject to constant video surveillance by the DEA looking for likely drug couriers, and showing up at the last minute is a factor they key on. When defendant was finally encountered, reasonable suspicion developed as to him for a stop. United States v. McCants, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109109 (E.D. Mich. June 16, 2023).*
Defendant was stopped for reckless driving for street racing in Tulsa. One officer smelled marijuana and warrants were found for defendant’s arrest. The search was simultaneously an automobile exception and inventory search. Cocaine was found. The search was reasonable. United States v. Phillips, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 15967 (10th Cir. June 26, 2023).*
The issuing magistrate was still neutral and detached. He came to the location of the search to assist in getting the warrant issued, but he stayed away from the building and signed the paperwork. He did not get involved or “investigate” like the issuing magistrate in Lo-Ji Sales did, other than testifying he admitted smelling marijuana there, but it did not influence his decision. United States v. Wrenn, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 15848 (11th Cir. June 23, 2023):
Where the officer smelled marijuana in the passenger compartment and searched for it finding nothing, a search of the engine compartment and trunk was excessive under the automobile exception. From the syllabus : “Expanding the search to the engine compartment and trunk went beyond the scope of the automobile exception. Although the trooper smelled marijuana in the passenger compartment of the car, his initial search yielded no results and provided no justification ‘to extend the zone of the … search further than the persons of the occupants or the interior of the car.’ State v. Patino, 83 N.J. 1, 14-15, 414 A.2d 1327 (1980). As a result, the seized evidence should be suppressed.” State v. Cohen, 2023 N.J. LEXIS 658 (June 22, 2023).
Judicial deception can’t be used to get a search warrant, the Franks equivalent in civil cases. Stephens v. Arizona, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108353 (D.Ariz. June 22, 2023)* (recognizing rule).
“Considering the totality of the circumstances in this case, we conclude that the officers acted under objectively reasonable exigent circumstances to enter Boyd’s home out of concern for the safety of the two missing juveniles. Thus, under the emergency aid exception, officers lawfully entered Boyd’s home.” State v. Boyd, 2023-Ohio-2079 (2d Dist. June 23, 2023).*
Defendant cannot show prejudice from defense counsel not attacking the search warrant for lacking probable cause where there was probable cause. Mumford v. State, 2023 Del. LEXIS 194 (June 22, 2023).*
Failure to file the warrant return doesn’t require suppression. It’s a curable ministerial act. Besides, the defendant can’t show prejudice. As to the merits, the search warrant was issued with probable cause and the good faith exception applies in any event. United States v. Haile, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108103 (E.D. Mich. June 22, 2023).
The affidavit for warrant shows that this was ongoing criminal activity, so it was reasonable for the issuing magistrate to conclude that it was not stale when it was issued. United States v. Burrus, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108194 (W.D. Tenn. June 22, 2023).*
There is a factual dispute whether defendant’s driving justified the traffic stop precluding summary judgment and qualified immunity. Lockhart v. Siloam Springs, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108185 (W.D. Ark. June 22, 2023).*
“Here, the officers had probable cause to believe that Mr. Sepulveda’s vehicle might contain evidence of a crime based on the smell of marijuana and the officers’ observation of marijuana and heroin inside the vehicle.” United States v. Sepulveda, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108271 (E.D. Pa. June 21, 2023).*
Defense counsel’s closing argument that was flatly contradicted by evidence the government elected to not put in in response to a motion to suppress maybe could have come in. Defense counsel can’t make a false argument to the jury without consequence. United States v. Ibarra, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108174 (C.D. Cal. June 21, 2023):
Defendant wasn’t shown as an addressee of this package, but it was sent to his address. That alone doesn’t give him standing. United States v. Roberts, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107828 (M.D. Ala. May 18, 2023), adopted, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107073 (M.D. Ala. June 21, 2023).
Plaintiff’s § 1983 suit against his arrest and search while the criminal case goes on is barred by Younger. Cuadrado v. Naugatuck Police, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107845 (D.Conn. June 22, 2023).*
Striking the challenged portions from the affidavit still leaves probable cause, so there is no Franks violation. United States v. Hansen, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107767 (D.Neb. June 22, 2023).*
There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a license plate. The number can be run. People v. Carter, 2023 Mich. App. LEXIS 4448 (June 22, 2023) (unpublished).*
Posted inFranks doctrine, Issue preclusion, Standing|Comments Off on M.D.Ala.: Address alone isn’t enough to confer standing in a mailed package; name on it has to be yours
“In contrast, here the State established that Maverick was a certified drug sniffing dog with a history of reliability. Maverick’s behavior, even without a full final response of sitting, was sufficient to indicate that he had detected the odors of the illicit drugs he was trained to detect. This is sufficient to establish probable cause to justify the warrantless search of McKinney’s truck, and the admission of the evidence found during the search did not violate the Fourth Amendment.” McKinney v. State, 2023 Ind. App. LEXIS 185 (June 21, 2023).
“The stop at issue in this case, however, was not a routine traffic stop. Rather, the primary purpose of the stop was to allay suspicion of Howell’s participation in a possible ongoing drug-trafficking conspiracy. And because we conclude that the initial stop was supported by reasonable suspicion, we readily conclude that the arrival of the K-9 officer within 5 minutes of the stop and the completion of the dog sniff within 10 to 11 minutes did not amount to an illegal prolonging of the stop.” United States v. Howell, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 15664 (4th Cir. June 22, 2023).*
“Dubon verbally consented to the [protective sweep]. While Dubon now contends that he never consented, his reply of ‘Go check, . . . there’s no one else’ in response to Officer Ferreiras’s statement about the officers’ intentions refutes his argument.” United States v. Dubon, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107730 (E.D.Va. June 21, 2023).*
The court of appeals erred in not applying Terry to this frisk inside defendant’s coat, instead relying on plain feel. Remanded. People v. Turner, 2023 Mich. LEXIS 937 (June 21, 2023).
“Here, the warrant specifically identified the offenses for which probable cause had been established, described the place to be searched, and included an illustrative list of items to be seized in relation to the designated crimes. This illustrative list — which was subject to a temporal limitation and which specifically identified the companies at the core of the government’s investigation, other individuals suspected of being involved in the scheme, and several specific categories of relevant documents — provided meaningful guidance for the officers executing the search as to render the warrant sufficiently ‘particularized.’” United States v. Discala, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 15636 (2d Cir. June 22, 2023).*
Plaintiff’s complaint against the search and seizure that led to his indictment states no facts. That’s reason enough to dismiss it, but the court also finds it all barred by Heck v. Humphrey. Daniels v. Dist., 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 15644 (10th Cir. June 22, 2023).*
The search warrant might appear general, but it was limited by the things to be searched for. The reference to “trace evidence including but not limited to blood, hair, fibers, fluids, and fingerprints” did not make it unparticular. Trace evidence is readily defined. Officers knew there was a shooting, and “Searching and seizing ballistics evidence in an ongoing shooting investigation was not outside the scope of probable cause.” State v. Martin, 2023 Del. Super. LEXIS 295 (June 16, 2023).
“Here, reasonable suspicion was based on the proximity of the white vehicle in time and in location to the reported burglary in progress, in addition to the matching vehicle description.” United States v. Ford, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107183 (N.D.Ala. May 16, 2023),* adopted, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106188 (N.D. Ala. June 20, 2023).*
Defense counsel was not ineffective for not challenging probable cause for his arrest when there was. United States v. Vallare, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106963 (W.D. Tex. June 21, 2023).*
Defendant’s indictment for conspiring to conduct an illegal search and seizure was sufficient. United States v. Rosser, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 15609 (6th Cir. June 20, 2023).*
Defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for not raising a challenge to search of someone else’s cell phone since defendant had no standing. State v. Smith, 2023 Del. Super. LEXIS 294 (June 20, 2023).*
Bloomberg: Abortion Fears Spur Reverse Search Warrant Bill in California by Titus Wu (“Privacy advocates are pushing California to be the first to crack down on a controversial investigative tool used by police that compels technology companies to turn over geolocation or search data to find suspects…The effort is buoyed in the Golden State given California’s location as the home of tech giants, which would bring significance to any potential ban the state passes, said Michael Price, a litigation director at the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, who is tracking the issue. The organization has not taken a stance on the California bill.”)
Posted ingeofence|Comments Off on Bloomberg: Abortion Fears Spur Reverse Search Warrant Bill in California
Plaintiff in Lewis & Clark County Jail sues under § 1983 that Montana search warrants can’t be executed on tribal lands. This claim is barred by Younger. Adams v. Baker, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107569 (D. Mont. June 21, 2023).*
The trial court erred in requiring the CI be better corroborated, but this also came from NCMEC and that was probable cause there was child pornography. State v. McNeela, 2023 Fla. App. LEXIS 4102 (Fla. 2d DCA June 21, 2023).*
Defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the cell phone of another that he seeks to suppress. United States v. Burkhalter, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106972 (W.D. Mo. June 21, 2023).*
The trial court erred in granting the motion to suppress the search of defendant’s place. Probable cause was shown that it was likely a base of operations for drug sales where defendant returned after sales. State v. Lang, 2023-Ohio-2026, 2023 Ohio App. LEXIS 2045 (1st Dist. June 21, 2023).*
The exclusionary rule applies only to constitutional violations, not statutory, and a violation of the probation search statute is not subject to exclusion. State v. Borger, 2023-Ohio-2025, 2023 Ohio App. LEXIS 2044 (1st Dist. June 21, 2023).
“While we note that instead of applying a Fourth Amendment analysis to the search of the jacket, the trial court improperly focused on a distinction between ‘temporarily unattended’ and ‘truly unattended’ property, a distinction not found in the law. However, we cannot address the trial court’s application of the law at this time, as the trial court’s factual findings are not supported by competent, credible evidence. … Because the evidence does not support the trial court’s factual findings, we must conclude that the trial court erred by granting Mr. Carpenter’s motion to suppress. The State’s sole assignment of error is sustained on that basis.” Remanded. State v. Carpenter, 2023-Ohio-2014, 2023 Ohio App. LEXIS 2017 (9th Dist. June 20, 2023).*
The officer’s inquiries about defendant’s employment while seeking to write a warning ticket unreasonably extended the stop. Motion to suppress granted. United States v. Boatright, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106551 (S.D. Ill. June 20, 2023).*
Despite Carpenter saying it is limited to historical CSLI, this court concludes there is no meaningful difference between real-time and historical CSLI under Carpenter. Exigency, however, was real. The police were in hot pursuit seeking to question defendant for a murder. The exigency of defendant being on the run made pinging his phone reasonable. State v. Sinapi, 2023 R.I. LEXIS 70 (June 20, 2023).
“An officer’s conduct is not judged by 20/20 hindsight, but with recognition that officers are often forced to make split-second decisions in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 396-97 (1989). Defendant has pleaded facts to show that he reasonably believed Plaintiff to be a threat to his safety and the safety of others at the scene. He is entitled to qualified immunity.” Jordan v. Giardino, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105646 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 20, 2023).*
There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in recorded jail non-legal calls. Burns v. State, 2023 Ga. App. LEXIS 287 (June 20, 2023).*
Particularity was not shown for five of nine categories in defendant’s cell phone search. Remanded to determine whether there is a minimal factual nexus creating a constitutional violation. State v. Turay, 371 Or. 128 (June 15, 2023).*
It was reasonable during defendant’s traffic stop for the officer to inquire into whether he had a firearm because the officer figured out defendant was a security guard likely with a weapon. That did not unreasonably extend the stop. Commonwealth v. Ross, 2023 PA Super 113, 2023 Pa. Super. LEXIS 279 (June 20, 2023).
The officer was reasonable in stopping defendant, even if mistaken as to the legal justification. United States v. Sarvis, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105777 (D.S.C. June 16, 2023).*
“Notwithstanding Fisk’s testimony, the appropriate inquiry here is not whether Officer Perkins was correct in his assessment of the alleged traffic violation. Rather, the question is did he ‘possess “a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the person stopped of criminal activity[,]”’ Singh, 363 F.3d at 355, demonstrated through ‘specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, evince more than an inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or hunch of criminal activity.’ Ortiz, 669 F.3d at 444.” United States v. Sarvis, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105777 (D.S.C. June 16, 2023).*
Posted inReasonable suspicion, Reasonableness|Comments Off on PA: Justified inquiry about presence of a firearm didn’t unreasonably extend stop
An immigration attorney who claimed the government copied his cell phone four times after he returned from other countries wasn’t entitled to a preliminary injunction. “Government retention of unlawfully seized property is not sufficient, standing alone, to establish irreparable injury.” Anibowei v. Morgan, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 15198 (5th Cir. June 19, 2023):
The Fifth Circuit follows other circuits to require only reasonable suspicion for a routine manual border cell phone search. Having found child pornography, the government could keep looking. “He argues that the government violated the Fourth Amendment by conducting the manual as well as forensic searches. But he does not claim that the forensic search was invalid even if we find the manual search valid.” “[W]e hold that no reasonable suspicion is necessary to conduct the sort of routine manual cell phone search at the border that occurred here.” United States v. Castillo, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 15207 (5th Cir. June 19, 2023).
Just because a passenger in a taxi or livery car has standing where he or she sits and against a stop, that does not mean there’s standing as to the trunk. United States v. Brown, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105565 (M.D. Pa. June 16, 2023).*
“Defendant’s Fourth Amendment right not to be unreasonably seized was not violated because the traffic stop had not been unreasonably prolonged at the time Defendant fled from the traffic stop.” The smell of marijuana led to probable cause. United States v. Chapman, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105579 (W.D. Pa. June 17, 2023).*
Officers had probable cause defendant left an In-and-Out Burger with 5,000 fentanyl pills to deliver them. That was passed on by collective knowledge to other officers and justified a search under the automobile exception. United States v. Reyes, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105749 (E.D. Tex. May 19, 2023).*
A cell phone tower dump for 15 minutes before and after a shooting was reasonable. It did not implicate the “privacies of life” that would be with CSLI for an extended period of time, as in Carpenter. State v. Elias, 314 Neb. 494, 2023 Neb. LEXIS 81 (June 16, 2023).
The officer does not get qualified immunity at the motion to dismiss stage. The dog alert was to the passenger compartment, and it couldn’t be said that the trunk could be included. Thompson v. Richter, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104879 (N.D. Tex. June 16, 2023).*
Defendant crossed a double solid line without signaling, and that justified the stop. The smell of marijuana gave reasonable suspicion to extend it. United States v. Iglecias, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104654 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 21, 2023),* adopted, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103946 (E.D. Tex. June 14, 2023).*
Despite not being charged with a crime, there was probable cause for plaintiff’s arrest. Lambach v. Conte, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 15076 (7th Cir. June 15, 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.
