Relying on a file mark stamp on a search warrant return that was a year and a few days earlier, defendant claims the issuing judge and officers conspired to back date everything to coverup an illegal search. That’s speculative. The answer is that it’s all a clerical error. United States v. Bowman, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 205572 (W.D. Ky. Nov. 10, 2022).
Plaintiff’s § 1983 suit over his arrest and search is barred by Younger. He can and must vindicate that right in state court. Shaw v. Carson, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 205580 (S.D. Ga. Oct. 17, 2022).*
The smell of marijuana is still probable cause despite hemp smelling the same and being legal. State v. Hampton, 2022 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 488 (Nov. 14, 2022).
Defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for counseling a guilty plea that waived what amounts to a completely losing Fourth Amendment claim. United States v. Escalera, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 205707 (W.D. La. Nov. 14, 2022).*
There were omissions in the original affidavit for warrant about identification that were later cleared up in a subsequent affidavit for another. On the whole, probable cause remains no matter what. United States v. Mohamud, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 205560 (D. Vt. Nov. 9, 2022)*:
Posted inFranks doctrine|Comments Off on D.Vt.: Def’s misidentification in original affidavit was later corrected and overall survives Franks challenge
2255 petitioner doesn’t show ineffective assistance of counsel on counsel’s not pursuing a Fourth Amendment claim on an unsettled question of law. That’s professional judgment. He has to show that the issue was clearly meritorious. Brito-Arroyo v. United States, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 205498 (N.D. Ga. Sep. 29, 2022).
Defendant’s erratic driving supported his stop, despite the fact the officer also suspected that the vehicle might be stolen. The fact it wasn’t stolen doesn’t nullify the basis for the stop. United States v. Young, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 205500 (D. Minn. Sep. 12, 2022).*
The state court erroneously denying a motion to suppress is not a 2254 issue because it’s barred by Stone. No COA. Decarlo v. Stephenson, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 31332 (6th Cir. Nov. 10, 2022).*
A female prison guard’s chance seeing plaintiff urinating in his cell is not a Fourth Amendment violation. This court has already held that a male guard’s chance seeing a female inmates’ breasts wasn’t a Fourth Amendment either. Sublett v. Hall, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 31331 (6th Cir. Nov. 10, 2022).*
Complaining of chest pains, defendant called 911. Attached to his address was a “safety alert” that police should show up for the safety of EMTs and firemen. As he was being transported to the hospital, he asked for his coat hanging on the porch rail. The officer felt the coat for weapons and found an unlabeled pill bottle, which he looked at to see if it was medication related to defendant’s condition. Instead, it was illegal drugs. Looking in the bottle was within the emergency aid exception. Ex parte Byrd, 2022 Ala. LEXIS 108 (Nov. 10, 2022).
Petitioner’s 2255 claims his guilty plea was involuntary because defense counsel didn’t challenge his search and seizure. Viewing this purely as a waived suppression motion, there’s nothing in the record suggesting that he would have prevailed, and Stone bars relief anyway. Grimes v. Tynon, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 205081 (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 10, 2022).*
Defendant had a backpack in hand when he encountered the police. First he tried to stick it in the door of a mobile home and “failed.” He fled with it in hand. When he was found, he had no backpack. Police went looking for it and found it. This was abandonment. United States v. Lodge, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 205235 (N.D.W. Va. Nov. 10, 2022).*
Posted inAbandonment, Emergency / exigency|Comments Off on AL: When def was being taken to ER for chest pains, looking in pocket of jacket he wanted to take and a pill bottle inside was reasonable
All defense lawyers have likely done this: Cross-examining an officer over factual mistakes in the search warrant affidavit. This was mentioned in rejecting other parts of defense counsel’s representation at trial as not deficient under Strickland. Neiheisel v. United States, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 205005 (M.D. Fla. Sep. 27, 2022). [Police should take note: Don’t trivialize the affidavit for the warrant because your mistakes can show up at trial.]
Defendant’s unpreserved claim the police used special software (see Kyllo) to search his computer for child pornography was overly intrusive. On plain error review, the record is incomplete and affirmed. State v. Machardy, 2022 Ariz. App. LEXIS 337 (Nov. 10, 2022).* [This is a hard sell because the police may search the whole computer for digital tracks of child porn images but they aren’t “looking” in the traditional sense with their eyes at all files to see what’s there. As I understand the software, it finds CP or it doesn’t and the search is otherwise less intrusive than a physical “look” with the eyes. In that regard, it’s less intrusive than a physical look at the hard drive. (Watch out what you ask for.)]
There was probable cause for issuance of the warrant. The omissions from the showing of probable cause aren’t material to the finding. United States v. Austin, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 204786 (D. Mass. Nov. 9, 2022).*
The exclusionary rule is not the remedy for a high-speed chase to capture defendant. United States v. Tyms, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 204894 (N.D. Ind. Nov. 10, 2022)
Defendant was finally in custody when the police sought to take his DNA, and it is suppressed for lack of warnings. Commonwealth v. Oliver, 2022 Va. App. LEXIS 563 (Nov. 9, 2022).*
Defendant was free to leave the scene of the stop, so it was consensual. Ramsey v. Commonwealth, 2022 Va. App. LEXIS 574 (Nov. 9, 2022).* [The simplicity of this Catch-22 is almost breathtaking: But if he leaves, he abandons the car for search purposes and then has no way home and must walk.]
There were three independent reasons for defendant’s arrest, so the search of his person was valid under any one of them. United States v. Young, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 204693 (D. Minn. Nov. 10, 2022).*
Posted inConsent, DNA, Exclusionary rule|Comments Off on N.D.Ind.: The exclusionary rule is not the remedy for a high-speed chase to capture defendant
“Defendant’s motion is not a model of clarity.” “As an overarching concern, Defendant has not met his burden to be ‘sufficiently definite, specific, detailed, and nonconjectural’ in presenting a substantial claim as to either warrant.” “Defendant has not presented any argument at all regarding the sufficiency of the search warrant. He has also failed to assert that he has standing. And with regard to the arrest warrant, Defendant has not made a cogent argument that the warrant lacked probable cause or specified what relief he seeks.” In re Whitfield, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 204403 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 9, 2022).
Defendant fled Arkansas to Key West immediately after a murder, and he was arrested in Key West when his plane landed. He had property stolen from the victim on him, and the search warrant for his backpack with him was issued with probable cause to believe evidence linking him to the murder would be in there. The backpack seized in Florida on his arrest was returned to Arkansas for execution of the warrant. The parolee search waiver issue doesn’t even have to be addressed. Cone v. State, 2022 Ark. 201 (Nov. 10, 2022).* [The parole search issue was a slam dunk for the state.]
The trial court clearly didn’t err in holding that a turn signal was required and defendant’s failure was justification for the stop. State v. Cremeans, 2022-Ohio-3932, 2022 Ohio App. LEXIS 3767 (4th Dist. Oct. 19, 2022).*
Pro se prisoner plaintiff’s case against the Memphis PD for his search and arrest was barred by Heck and statute of limitations. Roker v. City of Memphis, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 31167 (6th Cir. Nov. 8, 2022).*
A request for a court order for drone surveillance over a home requires a warrant under the Fourth Amendment. A request under the All Writs Act isn’t the way to do it. In re Application of the United States For An Order Authorizing Small Unmanned Aircraft Sys. Surveillance of Private Prop., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 203835 (E.D.N.C. Oct. 26, 2022):
When challenging a search warrant under Franks for omission of information, the defendant’s burden is higher because affidavits for warrants never include all available information and don’t have to, and the omissions have to be shown “designed to mislead.” Defendant fails in this burden. United States v. Hammonds, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 31036 (4th Cir. Nov. 9, 2022).
This stop was based on a traffic violation. “Defendant suggests Investigator Francois was targeting him by looking for any excuse to pull him over and search the vehicle because of the CI’s tip that Defendant sold narcotics out of this vehicle and in this neighborhood. Investigator Francois denies an ulterior motive and, more importantly, any such motive would be irrelevant.” United States v. Lanier, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 203491 (S.D. Ga. Oct. 17, 2022).*
This motion to suppress the search of defendant’s girlfriend’s car under a search warrant is denied for lack of a declaration of standing. United States v. Robbins, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 203565 (W.D.N.Y. Oct. 20, 2022).*
A single incident of legal mail being opened before it got to plaintiff in a county jail doesn’t state a constitutional violation. Braithwaite v. Suffolk Cty. N.Y., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 204233 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 9, 2022).
There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in outgoing calls from a county jail. Assa’Ad-Faltas v. Moye, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 203866 (D.S.C. Sep. 21, 2022).*
Officers were trained to use a sternum rub when a person is unresponsive. The bodycam video shows it was reasonable here. Also, officers helped pull up her pants when she was unresponsive. That too was reasonable. Davis v. Richardson, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 31085 (5th Cir. Nov. 9, 2022).* [Proof that no good deed goes unpunished.]
Qualified immunity granted on appeal: “Although we agree with the district court that Officer Klamser’s use of force violated the Fourth Amendment, we disagree that clearly established law existing at the time of the incident would have put a reasonable officer on notice that his conduct was unlawful. Accordingly, we reverse.” Surat v. Klamser, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 31011 (10th Cir. Nov. 9, 2022).*
“Additionally, the record indicates that the district court properly dismissed McCoig’s Fourth Amendment claim because it found probable cause existed for McCoig’s arrest. See Washington, 25 F.4th at 898 (‘Probable cause renders a seizure pursuant to legal process reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.’); Wood v. Kesler, 323 F.3d 872, 878 (11th Cir. 2003) (‘An arrest does not violate the Fourth Amendment if the police officer has probable cause for the arrest.’)” McCoig v. City of Rockledge, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 31054 (11th Cir. Nov. 9, 2022).*
In determining probable cause, “reliable hearsay” may be considered. State v. Dixon, 2022 Minn. LEXIS 483 (Nov. 9, 2022).
The question of lack of probable cause was not in the motion to suppress, but the trial court held there was, so the issue is presented for appellate review. People v. Rivera, 2022 NY Slip Op 06268, 2022 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6105 (2d Dept. Nov. 9, 2022).*
Defendant has Asperger’s and lives in an adult foster home. The responsible people there confiscated his electronics because he had child pornography on them, and they turned them over to the police. This was purely a private search under the Fourth Amendment and the state constitution. When they were seized, there was no police investigation going on at all. State v. Larson, 2022 MT 223, 2022 Mont. LEXIS 1038 (Nov. 9, 2022).*
Carpenter doesn’t suffice for a successor habeas. Besides, he’d lose on the merits. “Taylor cannot meet the statutory criteria for filing a second or successive habeas corpus petition. First, he does not rely on any newly discovered evidence. Second, ‘the Supreme Court has not held that the holding in Carpenter is retroactive [to cases] on collateral review.’ See In re Conzelmann, 872 F.3d 375, 377 (6th Cir. 2017) (‘[A] new rule is not “made retroactive to cases on collateral review” unless the Supreme Court holds it to be retroactive.’ (quoting Tyler v. Cain, 533 U.S. 656, 663, 121 S. Ct. 2478, 150 L. Ed. 2d 632 (2001))). [¶] Moreover, even if Carpenter were retroactively applicable to Taylor’s case, he has failed to make a prima facie showing that it would benefit him. As noted by the state court of appeals, law enforcement almost certainly was absolved of any obligation to obtain a search warrant in view of exigent circumstances. Taylor, 174 N.E.3d at 5 n.2.” In re Taylor, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 30976 (6th Cir. Nov. 8, 2022).*
Plaintiff was a NOPD criminalist who did drug analysis who complained that their tests didn’t differentiate between marijuana and hemp. Ultimately he was ordered to take a drug test and ordered from home to do it at the crime lab. He objected and resigned rather than take the drug test. He stated a claim that survives summary judgment that defendants violated clearly established law in doing so. Von Derhaar v. Stalbert, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 202962 (E.D. La. Nov. 8, 2022).*
The R&R found petitioner’s probation search occurred in violation of statute but the statute was adopted after. If anything it was harmless error. [Also, the statute adopted the case law, and Stone would bar relief anyway.] Terrell v. Payne, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 203457 (W.D. Ark. Nov. 8, 2022).*
A dog sniff of a package in the mail stream is reasonable. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy from a dog sniff there. State v. Teague, 2022-NCCOA-600, 2022 N.C. App. LEXIS 748 (Nov. 1, 2022).
Defendants’ motion in limine against the product of a federal search warrant in New Jersey for failure to produce the warrant materials is denied. They don’t even show standing in another’s email account. SEC v. Genovese, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 202649 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 7, 2022).*
Plaintiff was erroneously detained by court order, but she has no claim against the officers holding her. The district court never decided probable cause but it is evident there was. May v. Pritchett, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 30885 (11th Cir. Nov. 8, 2022).*
Defendant’s claim the search of his computer was based on his illegally obtained statement fails because it wasn’t obtained illegally. Also, inevitable discovery applies. United States v. Skally, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 203131 (D.R.I. Nov. 8, 2022).*
The attenuation doctrine can apply to a Rodriguez violation. United States v. Wright, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 203269 (E.D. Mo. Nov. 8, 2022).
On the surface, there was no reasonable suspicion for extending this stop. The court sets a hearing. “The Court agrees with Defendant that Officer DiRienzo did extend the stop by (i) asking questions unrelated to the traffic violation—including what life was like for Defendant in Massachusetts, and about the taxes in Massachusetts—in order to give another officer time to walk around and look inside Defendant’s vehicle; (ii) by telling Defendant “as long as your license is valid, I’m not going to give you a ticket, I think that’s reasonable” but then directing Defendant to continue waiting outside his car with another officer for nearly seven minutes …; (iii) by returning to Defendant after those seven minutes to ask Defendant whether he carried any contraband in the vehicle …; (iv) by asking if he could search Defendant’s car “bumper to bumper including everything inside of it …; and (v) by having the car sniffed from the outside by the K-9. Clearly, law enforcement sought to address not only the traffic violation, but also possible narcotics trafficking.” [Should have just granted the motion to suppress.] United States v. Zayas, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 202701 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 7, 2022).*
Officer’s mistake in saying he’d worked with CI before that proved false still wasn’t enough to show a Franks violation because it could just be an innocent mistake and not enough to undermine the probable cause. United States v. Duncan, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 30935 (6th Cir. Nov. 8, 2022).*
The affidavit for warrant for this house described a drug deal at the back door. The warrant was for the first floor where drugs were found. Defendant lived in the basement, and his half-brother on the first floor. He was arrested in the basement. The warrant was based on probable cause. United States v. Geer, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 202731 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 4, 2022).*
The CI’s tip was detailed and corroborated and provided probable cause. “Bradley argues that there are innocent explanations for his conduct. However, officers are not required to exhaust all possible innocent explanations of behavior before acting to detain a suspect.” United States v. Bradley, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 202723 (M.D. Pa. Nov. 7, 2022).*
Posted inInformant hearsay, Probable cause|Comments Off on CA6: Officer’s mistake he’d worked with CI before not shown to be Franks violation
Under the unreasonable application standard of 2254, the Utah court did not unreasonably conclude the exclusionary rule would not be applied in the sentencing phase of a criminal trial. Menzies v. Powell, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 30789 (10th Cir. Nov. 7, 2022).
In this forfeiture case, the ALJ found the affidavit for warrant lacking probable cause and went outside the warrant to consider evidence of probable cause. This was improper. At any rate, the affidavit for warrant was based on probable cause. Oliver v. Tenn. Dep’t of Safety & Homeland Sec., 2022 Tenn. App. LEXIS 427 (Nov. 4, 2022).*
The affidavit for this warrant was based on probable cause. And the good faith exception would apply in any event. United States v. Moss, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201700 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 4, 2022).*
A bulge in clothing alone is not reasonable suspicion. Bennett v. State, 2022 Md. App. LEXIS 814 (Nov. 4, 2022) (unreported).*
Posted inForfeiture|Comments Off on Reason: Houston Prosecutors Are Keeping Cash Seized From Defendants Whose Cases Were Compromised by Police Corruption
NYPD issues what it calls an “I-Card” (“Activate Investigation Card”) which is supposed to be based on probable cause to believe a person committed a felony. With probable cause, the I-Card provides collective knowledge for an arrest. United States v. Esters, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201804 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 4, 2022):
The court finds the stop without reasonable suspicion. It was allegedly justified by paper LPN that didn’t match the car as without reasonable suspicion because the tags weren’t run until after the stop. That and other factors don’t make reasonable suspicion. The body cam video supports this. Defendant’s alleged assault on the officers was not attenuated from the illegal stop under the Brown factors, all of which favor defendant. United States v. Price, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 200692 (D.D.C. Nov. 3, 2022).
The exclusionary rule doesn’t apply to supervised release revocations. United States v. Greenbaum, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 200686 (D. Colo. Nov. 3, 2022).*
“[D]espite Dorsey’s contentions to the contrary, this case does not ‘rise and fall’ on the information provided by the confidential informants.” There was plenty of other information. United States v. Dorsey, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 200840 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 3, 2022).*
Plaintiff shows questions for trial. He was held 30 minutes for a drug dog without reasonable suspicion. The officers claimed he looked impaired, but he had a disability that made him look that way, and they never did a FST. Klaver v. Hamilton Cty., 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 30642 (6th Cir. Nov. 3, 2022).*
Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment rights weren’t violated by the city’s order closing the motel they lived in because it was uninhabitable. There was a limited time they were without their personal property, but they were shortly allowed access to retrieve things. Patel v. Glenn, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 30641 (6th Cir. Nov. 3, 2022).*
Under plaintiff’s version of events, the officers violated clearly established law. Under their version they did not. That’s for trial. Pheap v. City of Knoxville, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 30095 (6th Cir. Oct. 27, 2022).*
Plaintiff was PITed by police and crashed into a pole. He can’t show malicious intent just from that. It was reasonable as a matter of law to stop him how they did because he was creating danger. Christiansen v. Eral, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 30116 (8th Cir. Oct. 31, 2022).*
A writ of eviction signed by a clerk after a judgment wasn’t a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Shuler v. Arnott, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 200328 (W.D. Mo. Nov. 3, 2022).*
Posted in§ 1983 / Bivens, Seizure|Comments Off on CA6: City’s order closing hotel ptfs lived in didn’t violate 4A
"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.
