In an action before the Board for Correction of Naval Records, the service member had to raise his Fourth Amendment claim before the agency or it is waived, which is what happened here. McPherson v. Del Toro, Sec’y of the Navy, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 8147 (D.C.Cir. Mar. 28, 2022) (unpublished order).
Officers lacked probable cause for an entry into a motel room to arrest defendant. The R&R is rejected, and the motion to suppress is granted. United States v. Mott, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55809 (W.D.Va. Mar. 28, 2022),* R&R 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56150 (W.D.Va. Feb. 25, 2022).*
A search warrant that seeks evidence for violations of federal law then lists them is sufficient. United States v. Calloway, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56231 (W.D.Pa. Mar. 28, 2022).*
Defendant’s Fourth Amendment claim was waived by his guilty plea, but he’d lose on the merits anyway. People v. Kimmons, 2022 IL App (2d) 180589, 2022 Ill. App. LEXIS 144 (Mar. 29, 2022).*
“Next, Grant’s behavior once the traffic stop occurred gave police additional reasons to suspect that he was involved in criminal activity. King’s testimony and the video evidence presented during the hearing support the conclusion that Defendant Grant was attempting to distance himself from the vehicle carrying the methamphetamine. In addition to exiting the vehicle before it had come to a complete stop, placing his hands in the air, and moving toward the second police vehicle, he also disclaimed ownership of anything in the car except for a backpack located in the back seat area. And his several disclaimers occurred without questioning or prompting.” United States v. Grant, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56679 (E.D.Ky. Mar. 29, 2022).*
The warrant here wasn’t general. “Listing only ‘evidence of crime’ as a description of the things to be seized does not satisfy the Fourth Amendment’s particularity requirement and ‘can only be described as a general warrant.’ … However, the warrant here was far more specific than the warrant in Stefonek, as it listed the specific types of items which law enforcement believed would have evidence of the crime of visa fraud. Petitioner does not argue that law enforcement did not have probable cause to conduct the search or to seize the items listed. And, evidence of foreign workers logically relates to the visa fraud crime that law enforcement had probable cause to believe Petitioner had committed.” Gire v. United States, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56723 (C.D.Ill. Mar. 29, 2022).*
NYT: Does the End of Cash Mean the End of Privacy? by Peter Coy (“As cash disappears from the modern economy, privacy disappears with it. You can’t spend money with a credit card, debit card or check without creating a record of your transaction.”)
Posted inSurveillance technology|Comments Off on NYT: Does the End of Cash Mean the End of Privacy?
Ordering plaintiff out of the Sheriff’s Office lobby for fear of disruption was novel as a potential seizure and that’s subject to qualified immunity. “Sheriff Crone’s conduct in ordering Mr. Brandt to leave the lobby due to a perceived disruption of office operations appears to present a novel Fourth Amendment issue, or at least one that is not beyond debate. Sheriff Crone is therefore entitled to qualified immunity on Mr. Brandt’s Fourth Amendment claim.” Brandt v. Crone, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 8104 (10th Cir. Mar. 28, 2022).
Factual disputes underlying qualified immunity bar summary judgment for the defense and appellate jurisdiction. Bayon v. Berkebile, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 8011 (7th Cir. Mar. 28, 2022).*
A use of force in school against an unruly student with behavioral disorders stated a claim, The assertion of qualified immunity here falls short. Discovery will proceed. Medina v. Izquierdo, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55263 (N.D.Ill. Mar. 28, 2022).*
“The district court properly granted summary judgment because Sandoval failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Melvin’s use of force was unreasonable in light of the facts and circumstances.” Sandoval v. Melvin, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 8095 (9th Cir. Mar. 24, 2022).*
In this excessive force case: “Based on the video evidence, no reasonable jury could believe Gasser’s versions of the events. Scott, 550 U.S. at 380 (;When opposing parties tell two different stories, one of which is blatantly contradicted by the record, so that no reasonable jury could believe it, a court should not adopt that version of the facts for purposes of ruling on a motion for summary judgment.’). Therefore, we are left with the video recording’s version of the incident and Gasser’s admission that she did not comply when Officer Gainer told her to sit down.” Gasser v. Vill. of Pleasant Prairie, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 8015 (7th Cir. Mar. 28, 2022).*
Violation of prison policy is not per se a constitutional violation. The use of force in prison here was not unreasonable. Hamel v. Williams, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56155 (E.D.Ark. Mar. 7, 2022).*
“The district court properly dismissed Coryellbattle’s Fourth Amendment claims for false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution because probable cause existed to arrest Coryellbattle under Arizona [law]. Likewise, the existence of probable cause defeats Coryellbattle’s First Amendment claim.” Coryellbattle v. City of Maricopa, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 8212 (9th Cir. Mar. 24, 2022).*
The affidavit for the search warrant for defendant’s phone didn’t show nexus, but it was still relied upon in good faith. R&R rejected. United States v. Langford, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55162 (E.D.Okla. Mar. 28, 2022).
Sounds and observations of what might be going on inside showing violence might be occurring is exigency for a warrantless entry. State v. Rowley, 2022-Ohio-997, 2022 Ohio App. LEXIS 899 (12th Dist. Mar. 28, 2022).*
It was not reasonable for the officer to conclude that defendant violated the traffic law before making the stop. The state injected a new theory on appeal not raised below, and it’s waived. People v. Holiman, 2022 Cal. App. LEXIS 250 (1st Dist. Mar. 28, 2022).*
“SA Nix’s 56-page affidavit provides detailed information that is directly connected to an evasion of payment charge. Those few sentences or portions of sentences that pertain exclusively to an evasion of tax assessment charge have a de minimis impact on the scope of the warrant. Adopting Defendant’s argument would put this Court in the untenable position of having to suppress evidence every time an affidavit includes information not directly relevant to the charge at issue. This Court sees no reason to constrain a law enforcement affiant from providing additional contextual information especially in complex financial crimes cases.” United States v. Millegan, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54722 (D.Ore. Mar. 25, 2022).*
Defendant’s admission in a jail call that the methamphetamine in the case was his led to a search warrant for his cell phone. Henderson v. United States, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54617 (W.D.N.C. Mar. 25, 2022).*
There were disputes in the facts to deny qualified immunity and require a trial. Was decedent posing a threat or not when he was shot? Estate of Aguirre v. Cnty. of Riverside, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 7925 (9th Cir. Mar. 24, 2022).*
“For another document to be considered part of a ‘warrant,’ it must be (1) incorporated by reference to the search warrant and (2) accompany the search warrant both when it is authorized by the judge and when the search warrant is executed. … In other words, there are two distinct requirements for documents to be considered part of a search warrant: (1) the documents must be incorporated by reference to the search warrant; and (2) the documents must accompany the search warrant both when it is authorized by the judge and when the search is executed.” A hearing is required on this. United States v. Mendoza, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54701 (D.Nev. Mar. 25, 2022).
“The only basis for reasonable suspicion offered by the Government is that Detective Wilson had identified Daniels as a suspect in the carjacking and shootings. This is enough to satisfy reasonable suspicion. … Here, Detective Wilson has specific and articulable facts to reasonably suspect Daniels. … Moreover, Daniels was wearing the same hooded sweater at the grocery store when stopped by Detective Wilson as he allegedly wore during the carjacking. These articulable facts are sufficient to confer not only reasonable suspicion but probable cause.” United States v. Daniels, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54632 (S.D.Fla. Mar. 25, 2022).*
WaPo: Letting police access Google location data can help solve crimes by Jane Bambauer (“Acquiring anonymous data about which devices were in a bank at the time of a robbery should not be unconstitutional.”) [So do general violations of the Fourth Amendment.]
Posted ingeofence|Comments Off on WaPo: Letting police access Google location data can help solve crimes
Plaintiff stated a § 1983 claim that a jail phone provider recorded attorney calls. Kurtenbach v. Securus Techs., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54089 (D.S.D. Mar. 25, 2022).
Colorado grants immunity from crimes found as a result of a call about a drug overdose. C.R.S. § 18-1-711(3). In this case, that statutory immunity undermines the probable cause for defendant’s arrest for a violation of federal law, too. United States v. Elmore, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53195 (D.Colo. Mar. 23, 2022) (R&R).
Speeding is reasonable suspicion for a stop. State v. Boucher, 2022-Ohio-978, 2022 Ohio App. LEXIS 873 (5th Dist. Mar. 24, 2022).*
Defendant’s DNA was obtained in a 2014 case that was dismissed. The DNA from that was used to connect him to this case. The prior DNA results are not excludable just because the case went away. Hayes v. State, 2022 Md. App. LEXIS 224 (Mar. 25, 2022).
The user of a cell phone has standing to contest a warrant for its CSLI. Pre-Carpenter acquisition of the CSLI was in good faith. United States v. Washington, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54160 (D.Utah Mar. 24, 2022).*
Involuntary hospitalization is a Fourth Amendment issue. Glass v. Mayas, 984 F.2d 55, 58 (2d Cir. 1993). Lurch v. Chaput, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54364 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 25, 2022).*
There was reasonable suspicion for a stop and consent for extension. Dog sniff valid. State v. Drake, 311 Neb. 219, 2022 Neb. LEXIS 37 (Mar. 25, 2022).*
Defendant with his cell phone in hand was at the scene of a shooting as shown by surveillance video. That’s probable cause for the phone. United States v. King, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53647 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 24, 2022).
When the facts of a motion to suppress are based entirely on police reports, a hearing is not required. People v. Fontaine, 2022 VI SUPER 37U, 2022 V.I. LEXIS 28 (Mar. 18, 2022).
2255 claim that DNA sample was obtained in violation of Fourth Amendment is Stone barred. Nicholson v. Bauman, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 7871 (6th Cir. Mar. 24, 2022).*
“After crashing his car, Daniel Van Linn was taken to the hospital, where two blood tests were performed: the first one by the hospital for diagnostic and treatment purposes; a later one at the direction of a sheriff’s deputy for investigative purposes. Both blood tests revealed that Van Linn’s blood-alcohol concentration (BAC) was over the legal limit. The circuit court suppressed the results of the deputy’s blood test, concluding that the deputy’s blood draw violated the Fourth Amendment because the deputy did not have a warrant. The State then subpoenaed the hospital for Van Linn’s medical records, which included the hospital’s diagnostic blood-test results. Van Linn argues that those results should be suppressed under the Fourth Amendment’s exclusionary rule because the State subpoenaed the hospital only after it learned from the deputy’s unlawful blood draw that Van Linn’s BAC was over the legal limit. The issue is whether hospital’s blood-test results are nevertheless admissible under the independent-source doctrine, an exception to the exclusionary rule. We hold that they are, and therefore affirm the court of appeals.” State v. Van Linn, 2022 WI 16, 2022 Wisc. LEXIS 19 (Mar. 24, 2022).
The state’s raising standing for the first time in en banc review was waived as untimely. The prior opinion on this is withdrawn. (Otherwise, a conflict with other Florida appellate courts is certified to the Florida Supreme Court.) State v. Fernandez, 2022 Fla. App. LEXIS 2234 (Fla. 2d DCA Mar. 26, 2022), prior opinion State v. Fernandez, 2021 Fla. App. LEXIS 73 (Fla. 2d DCA Jan. 6, 2021) (finding no standing sua sponte).
“Defendant argues that given the evolving laws regarding marijuana (and other cannabinoid products or derivatives), dog sniffs are increasingly becoming unreliable and therefore violative of the Fourth Amendment because dog sniffs cannot discriminate between contraband and marijuana that is legally possessed. But on the facts presented here—a trained-dog sniff of the outside of a vehicle parked in a parking lot on federal property—Place and Caballes are still good law. There may come a day when Rosco’s sniff no longer reliably detects only contraband but impermissibly detects lawful activity due reasonable expectations of privacy. This is not that day. The ruling of the Magistrate Judge is AFFIRMED.” United States v. Gomez, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52909 (W.D.Tex. Mar. 24, 2022).*
Michigan v. Hudson held that a knock and announce violation does not invoke suppression. Since then some lower courts have held that Hudson does not apply to arrest warrant execution at the home. The parties are invited to brief this. United States v. Terrazas, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52883 (W.D.Tex. Mar. 23, 2022).*
Posted inDog sniff, Knock and announce|Comments Off on W.D.Tex.: A dog sniff on federal property was reasonable; MMJ not an issue
“The officers’ conduct up to and including Officer Mino’s decision to open the car’s passenger-side door fits within their role as community caretakers. As Mino testified at the suppression hearing, Mino believed that he and Anderson were responding to a possible overdose and that they would need to render aid. … At the scene, Mino’s belief appeared to be reasonable as neither he nor Anderson could get the vehicle’s occupants to stir, despite it being the middle of the afternoon and the officers banging on the windows and yelling at the occupants. …” United States v. Mason, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 7726 (6th Cir. Mar. 23, 2022).
The affidavit here was fairly detailed, and that means it was not bare bones. United States v. Shafer, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 7757 (2d Cir. Mar. 24, 2022).*
The encounter with defendant on a business parking lot at midnight was a seizure. A reasonable person would not feel free to leave. The stop was also without reasonable suspicion on the totality. State v. Lamb, 2022 Tex. App. LEXIS 1955 (Tex. App. — Austin Mar. 24, 2022).*
Officers had a search warrant for a tent in a homeless encampment. Announcement before entry wasn’t required where the tent was not shut. State v. Keanaaina, 2022 Haw. LEXIS 44 (Mar. 22, 2022).
Officers encountered defendant’s car double parked on a Boston street. They pulled up along side, engaged in a pleasant conversation, asked the driver to move the car, and he did. They followed and pulled the car over because it seemed suspicious where the car went. The stop was without reasonable suspicion. The traffic stop, if it was, was resolved by the car driving off. Plain view of gun suppressed. Commonwealth v. Daveiga, 2022 Mass. LEXIS 145 (Mar. 24, 2022).*
A student’s excessive force case against an officer at school showed enough to overcome qualified immunity. E.W. v. Detroit Pub. Sch. Dist., 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 7724 (6th Cir. Mar. 21, 2022).*
Social media providers sent suspected child pornography to NCMEC, and they were reliable informants. “The State appeals the district court’s grant of Defendant James Henz’s motion to suppress child pornography found in the search of his home, arguing that the district court erred in finding that the issued search warrant was not supported by probable cause. In this opinion, we examine for the first time the requisite level of description and verification necessary in an affidavit supporting the application for a search warrant for child pornography when the factual basis for the warrant are the reports of third-party electronic communication service providers (providers). We reverse.” State v. Henz, 2022 N.M. App. LEXIS 16 (Mar. 23, 2022).
There is no specific time limit for a search warrant for BAC in New York. People v. Reynolds, 2022 NY Slip Op 02023, 2022 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1885 (2d Dept. Mar. 23, 2022).*
The warrantless entry into defendant’s hotel room was unreasonable and without exigency, and the handgun he had is suppressed. Nevertheless, his threatening the officers during the entry stands. State v. Bourgeois, 2022 Wisc. App. LEXIS 241 (Mar. 23, 2022).*
Oregon permits juror questions, and here one asked whether defendant willingly provided a DNA sample. Asking it on the record all amounted to error, but under plain error review, with other evidence in the case, it’s not reversible. State v. Longjaw, 318 Ore. App. 487, 2022 Ore. App. LEXIS 491 (Mar. 23, 2022).
In a case involving the “disagreeing cotenants” (Georgia v. Randolph), defendant denied living there and having authority to consent. “In sum, under the Fourth Amendment, the disagreeing-tenants rule is a narrow exception to the common-authority rule, it is grounded in social norms, and we disagree that it applies to the present facts. A person who wants to overcome a cotenant’s valid consent to a police search cannot have it both ways, simultaneously claiming no right to control who enters the premises but also objecting to the police’s entry.” State v. Gonzalez-Coria, 318 Ore. App. 524, 2022 Ore. App. LEXIS 481 (Mar. 23, 2022)
Briefing the state constitutional issue is not briefing the Fourth Amendment issue. [In Oregon, that seems futile anyway, but they had say it.] State v. Laney, 318 Ore. App. 509, 2022 Ore. App. LEXIS 493 (Mar. 23, 2022).
Posted inConsent, Standing, State constitution|Comments Off on OR: Asking juror question about refusal of consent was error, but here harmless
“Petitioner alleges that Attorney Greene failed to present critical documents for Petitioner’s review prior to his guilty plea. Petitioner contends that he should have been shown ‘evidence of there being a valid search warrant,’ ‘computer chat logs where the government possibly committed entrapment,’ and evidence that Petitioner ‘blocked’ someone on Facebook that he knew was an adult police officer who was harassing him and alleges that he only met the person to get them to stop harassing him. … The Government responds that Petitioner has not identified information withheld or unknown to him or how reviewing that information would have changed the outcome of his case. … The Government argues that Petitioner should know better than anyone whether he conversed online with minors and enticed them into sexual activity or child pornography, and the Court can rightly presume that Petitioner would not have pleaded guilty unless the underlying facts were actually true. … [¶] The Court first notes that Petitioner chose to plead guilty and did not file a motion to suppress evidence or proceed to trial.” Phelps v. United States, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52147 (E.D.Tenn. Mar. 23, 2022).
Petitioner’s 2255 claim was Stone barred, and he didn’t object to the R&R. No CoA. Altunar-Jimenez v. United States, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 7688 (6th Cir. Mar. 23, 2022).*
12½ month old information for child pornography warrant was not stale. United States v. Irons, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51811 (D.Mass. Mar. 23, 2022).*
Posted inIneffective assistance, Issue preclusion, Staleness|Comments Off on E.D.Tenn.: Def doesn’t show a right to see whether the SW in his case was validly issued; that’s the lawyer’s call; and he pled guilty
“At the outset of the stop, West asked defendant a series of questions: (1) ‘Do you live in this area?’; (2) ‘What are you doing up here?’; (3) ‘Where are you coming from today?’; and (4) if West could see the citation that was in defendant’s car.” None of these had anything to do with speeding, and they unreasonably extended the stop. State v. Krieger, 318 Ore. App. 441, 2022 Ore. App. LEXIS 479 (Mar. 23, 2022).
“Viewing the ‘totality of the circumstances,’ Florida v. Harris, 568 U.S. 237, 244 (2013), through the ‘lens of common sense,’ as the Supreme Court has instructed, id. at 248, these facts collectively give rise to probable cause to believe that a search of 1698 Coventry would uncover evidence of drug trafficking. It is, therefore, unnecessary to evaluate whether the trash pulls, which yielded evidence limited to Saunt, supported a search of James’ residence.” United States v. James, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51393 (N.D.Ohio Mar. 22, 2022).*
Reasonable suspicion for continuing defendant’s speeding stop came from a CI coupled with observations at the scene. United States v. Douville, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51494 (W.D.N.C. Feb. 16, 2022).*
"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.
