The DUSM here credibly testified that the target of his arrest warrant actually resided at the place searched, notwithstanding that the testimony proved incorrect. The belief was reasonable, so defendant’s rights were not violated. United States v. Vasquez-Algarin, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58491 (M.D. Pa. April 28, 2014).
Defendant consented to everything that happened here, including starting the conversation with the police that led to the consent. United States v. Brown, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58631 (M.D. Pa. April 28, 2014).*
Defendant’s bag was searched without his knowledge in the Customs area of the Atlanta airport after arriving from Ecuador because of a dog alert. Then it was searched again while still in the airport after he picked it up. The bag was still in the border area, so the extended border search doctrine doesn’t apply, but, even if it did, the suitcase was still in the same condition as when it arrived the first time. United States v. Kandhai, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58656 (N.D. Ga. April 1, 2014),* adopted 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58366 (N.D. Ga. April 28, 2014).*
You have to reign in your natural hunter’s instinct and take the time to get a search warrant. There’s the affidavit of probable cause to compose, the warrant form to fill out, maybe a review by the local prosecutor, and then finding a magistrate to submit the package to for approval. It’s a hassle.
But it’s a hassle the Constitution imposes, if your investigation has led you to a residence, garage, barn, outbuilding, warehouse, office, storage locker, package, vehicle, boat, or other place protected by the Fourth Amendment. The constitutional protection “against unreasonable searches and seizures” has been interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court to mean that a search warrant is necessary to make searches and seizures “reasonable” unless the circumstances justify application of one or more of the recognized exceptions. (Katz v. U.S.)
Because warrantless searches and seizures are presumed to be unreasonable, the general rule-of-thumb is to try to get a warrant whenever possible. On the other hand, if you can seize evidence without engaging in a search, you don’t need either a warrant or any exception. Therefore, the initial inquiry in determining whether you need a search warrant is whether you can seize the evidence without making a “search.”
Surveillance methods in the United States operate under the general principle that “use precedes regulation.” While the general principle of “use precedes regulation” is widely understood, its societal costs have yet to be fully realized. In the period between “initial use” and “regulation,” government actors can utilize harmful investigative techniques with relative impunity. Assuming a given technique is ultimately subjected to regulation, its preregulation uses are practically exempted from any such regulation due to qualified immunity (for the actor and municipality) and the exclusionary rule’s good faith exception (for any resulting evidence). This expectation of impunity invites strategic government actors to make frequent and arbitrary uses of harmful investigative techniques during preregulation periods. Regulatory delays tend to run long (often a decade or more) and are attributable in no small part to the stalling methods of law enforcement (through assertions of privilege, deceptive funding requests, and strategic sequencing of criminal investigations). While the societal costs of regulatory delay are high, rising, and difficult to control, the conventional efforts to shorten regulatory delays (through expedited legislation and broader rules of Article III standing) have proved ineffective. Continue reading →
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on New Law Review Article: The Forgotten Right to Be Secure
WASHINGTON — Justice Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court’s new champion of the 4th Amendment, is likely to play a crucial role Tuesday when the court hears this year’s most important search case: whether the police may routinely examine the digital contents of a cellphone confiscated during an arrest.
Civil libertarians say the stakes are high because arrests are so common — 13.1 million were made in 2010, according to the FBI — and smartphones hold so much private information.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on LATimes: Scalia set to play key role in Supreme Court smartphone case
This post updates readers on the current status of the mosaic theory of the Fourth Amendment. As regular readers know, that’s the novel approach to the Fourth Amendment introduced by the DC Circuit in United States v. Maynard — and then suggested by the concurring opinions in United States v. Jones — by which an aggregation of non-searches and subsequent analysis of the collected data at some point becomes a Fourth Amendment search.
There has been a lot of litigation on the mosaic theory recently. I wanted to flag three recent developments: an oral argument before the Eleventh Circuit, a decision by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, and a novel procedural step by Magistrate Judge Facciola.
Posted inReasonable expectation of privacy|Comments Off on WaPo: Volokh: Courts grapple with the mosaic theory of the Fourth Amendment
The “mosaic theory” refers to a concept borrowed from a series of cases involving challenges by the government to requests under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), and adapted by the Maynard court for Fourth Amendment use. The theory is based on the concept that the whole is greater than the sum of its individual parts and that the aggregation of information takes on greater significance when combined with other items of information. Applying this theory in Maynard, the court found that isolated and discrete actions of the government that are not deemed searches individually, may become searches when aggregated together en masse, thus violating a person’s reasonable expectation of privacy. In this regard, the Maynard court found that the government’s warrantless use of a GPS tracking device for four weeks violated the defendant’s reasonable expectation of privacy and constituted a search under the Fourth Amendment. The Maynard decision marked a dramatic shift in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, and, at the time of its decision in 2010, was contrary to holdings of several other circuit courts. In the aftermath of Maynard, many articles were written on the mosaic theory and its viability for Fourth Amendment use. Some of the articles argued against the wisdom of the mosaic theory and its use in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence because of its impracticability. However, notwithstanding the perceived difficulty of applying the mosaic theory to Fourth Amendment violations, it is precisely the impracticality of the use of the mosaic theory that will save Fourth Amendment privacy rights and restore a balance between the government’s interest in investigating crime and society’s interest in maintaining privacy in and out of the public eye. Prior to the advent of modern technology, “the greatest protections of privacy were neither constitutional nor statutory, but practical.” Today, amid new technologies capable of constant twenty-four hour, seven day-a-week, monitoring, the boundary between privacy and pragmatic considerations is non-existent, and privacy protection has been eroded in favor of law enforcement. No longer is the government constrained by investigatory methods that require massive amounts of manpower or resources. New technology has enabled law enforcement officials to become more cost-effective and more efficient, without concern to the pragmatic considerations that existed prior to wiretaps, pen registries, thermal scans, beepers and GPS technology. The mosaic theory will help establish equilibrium between privacy expectations and effective law enforcement. This Article discusses the mosaic theory and the issues raised regarding its viability in resolving Fourth Amendment privacy concerns in the wake of advanced technology, and how its application, despite its flaws, will provide a balancing effect between the protections afforded by the Fourth Amendment and technological advances that continually exert pressure on the scope and meaning of the Fourth Amendment.
[Law review articles are reviewed by Prof. Andrew G. Ferguson, UDC School of Law.]
Posted inReasonable expectation of privacy|Comments Off on New Law Review Article: District of Columbia Jones and the Mosaic Theory – In Search of a Public Right of Privacy: The Equilibrium Effect of the Mosaic Theory
The CI here was getting calls from the defendant about defendant selling him drugs, so he called the police to set him up. He was wired and took marked money. The seizure of the pill bottle off defendant was with probable cause and valid as incident to arrest, although it preceded it. (Defendant concedes the timing of the search; the only issue was the reliability of the known informant. Wasn’t the product of the wire enough?) Patton v. Commonwealth, 2014 Ky. App. LEXIS 68 (April 25, 2014).
The district court’s findings that the officers were credible on an issue carries with it an implicit finding the defense witnesses were not. Search issue reaffirmed after remand for the government. United States v. Ambrose, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 7822, 2014 FED App. 0311N (6th Cir. April 24, 2014), on remand from United States v. Beals, 698 F.3d 248 (6th Cir. 2012).*
A kid walking home from school saw a marijuana plant in a backyard. He told the police. They saw the plant, and they went to the house. An older man there said the plant belonged to his son who lived in the basement with his girlfriend. At the basement, officers did a knock and talk and got consent to search, finding suboxone (prescription synthentic heroin). The son rolled on his supplier, an Hispanic male who drives a light colored SUV who delivered heroin to him five times in a DAP caulk container. The police got a line on who he was, and the son set up a buy while they were listening on the call. Other officers tailed the SUV making the delivery to the house planning to stop it if there was a traffic offense, but there wasn’t. When the vehicle pulled up at the house, officers made a felony stop and searched the car. On the totality with all this specificity, there was probable cause for the stop, arrest, and search of the car. State v. Granados, 2014-Ohio-1758, 2014 Ohio App. LEXIS 1725 (5th Dist. April 24, 2014).
Nexus to defendant’s property for a search warrant was shown by GPS data and physical surveillance putting co-conspirators at his house before and after drug deals and wiretaps referring to “the office” which officers finally, and reasonably, interpreted to be the house. On the totality, nexus was reasonably inferred by the issuing USMJ. United States v. Chaidez-Ontiveros, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 190105 (N.D. Ga. September 17, 2012): Continue reading →
Posted inNexus, Probable cause|Comments Off on N.D.Ga.: On the totality, nexus was reasonably inferred by the issuing USMJ
More than 90 percent of American adults own a mobile phone, and more than half of the devices are smartphones. But “smartphone” is a misnomer. They are personal computers that happen to include a phone function, and like any computer they can store or wirelessly retrieve enormous amounts of personal information: emails, photos and videos; document files; financial and medical records; and virtually everywhere a person has been.
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court will consider whether law enforcement officers during an arrest may search the contents of a person’s mobile phone without a warrant. The court should recognize that new technologies do not alter basic Fourth Amendment principles, and should require a judicial warrant in such circumstances.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on NYT Editorial: Smartphones and the 4th Amendment [commenting on Wurie and Riley]
NEW YORK, April 25 (Reuters) – Internet service providers must turn over customer emails and other digital content sought by U.S. government search warrants even when the information is stored overseas, a federal judge ruled on Friday.
In what appears to be the first court decision addressing the issue, U.S. Magistrate Judge James Francis in New York said Internet service providers such as Microsoft Corp or Google Inc cannot refuse to turn over customer information and emails stored in other countries when issued a valid search warrant from U.S. law enforcement agencies.
If U.S. agencies were required to coordinate efforts with foreign governments to secure such information, Francis said, “the burden on the government would be substantial, and law enforcement efforts would be seriously impeded.”
The U.S. government doesn’t have the power to search a home in another country, nor should it have the power to search the content of email stored overseas.
To protect this principle, we filed a formal legal challenge months ago to a U.S. search warrant seeking customer email content that is located exclusively outside the United States. Today we received an initial decision that maintains the status quo but is a necessary step in our effort to make sure that governments follow the letter of the law when they seek our customers’ private data in the future.
“Why did local judges and police sign and execute warrants for a crime that doesn’t exist?”
Yesterday, Illinois State’s Attorney Jerry Brady announced that he would not seek criminal charges against the man who ran a parody Twitter account purporting to be Peoria, Ill., Mayor Jim Ardis. That’s because there is no state law against impersonating someone online. (Even if there were, it’s likely that the Twitter account itself would fall under the First Amendment protections for parodying public figures.)
A few readers in Peoria have told me that Ardis told a local radio station yesterday that prosecutors will continue to pursue a charge for the small amount of marijuana that police found during the search. Given that the warrant was to search the home for evidence of a crime that doesn’t exist, the warrant and the search were illegal. I don’t see how that charge could possibly stand.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on WaPo: ‘The Watch’ Blog: The latest in Peoria’s Twitter parody case
EFF has been on the road, traveling to cities and towns across the country to bring our message of digital rights and reform to community and student groups.
And while we had the tremendous opportunity to talk about our work and our two lawsuits against the NSA, the best part of the trip was learning about all of the inspiring and transformative activism happening everyday on the local level to combat government surveillance and defend our digital rights.
Dreamer. History is a brutal teacher.
eff’s enthusiasm reminds me only slightly of the ’60’s, but only in that young people are getting marginally involved. Big difference: In the ’60’s, every male my age was at risk of being drafted, with the risk of going to fight an unpopular war, and 58,286 died there, 153,303 were wounded, and 1,643 are MIA. That motivates the hell out of you. In fact, a week from today is the 44th anniversary of the Kent State Shootings where Ohio National Guardsman shot into a crowd and killed four students.
Today, however, young people have grown up having already lost or willingly given away all their privacy because of cell phones, the Internet, and specifically because of Facebook and other such Internet inventions of the Prince of Darkness. If you grew up already with a mindset that nothing is private anymore, will you ever come around to appreciate the invasions of privacy we now tolerate in the name of capitalism or national security or both?
My wife, a college professor, is appalled how her students are so easily manipulated by Rand Paul on this, and if they can get motivated to do anything (they sure don’t read the class assignments) they might halfheartedly bitch about their lack of privacy while they’re posting to Facebook what stupid irrelevant things they are doing that nobody else should care about, and didn’t before Facebook, Twitter, and God knows what else told them that irrelevant BS is worth sharing. And, Paul intends to co-opt the younger voters on privacy. If anything, older voters should appreciate it more because they remember that privacy used to exist.
Which brings up another point: Why isn’t Rand Paul trying to get any of the legislation he touts as protecting our privacy before a committee and then for a full vote? If he is, it isn’t apparent. Is he failing only because the other 99 are oblivious, or is it because it was all for show in the first place?
Posted inFISA, Informational privacy|Comments Off on eff.org: Campus Activism Against NSA Spying is Growing Fast [Oh? Not so fast]
An entry under the emergency doctrine where an unresponsive person needed no aid improperly evolved into a criminal investigation. Suppressed. Kansas cases should align with Brigham City, but the search here was still excessive. State v. Neighbors, 2014 Kan. LEXIS 177 (April 25, 2014):
A warrantless entry into a private dwelling by law enforcement officers must fall within a recognized exception to the warrant requirement to be considered reasonable and valid under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and § 15 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights. In this case, we consider whether a warrantless entry by police and their ensuing search and seizure were justified under the emergency aid exception when officers entered a locked apartment to assist an unresponsive person but then began a criminal investigation once the individual was awake and clearly not needing emergency medical assistance. We hold the officers unreasonably exceeded the permissible scope of their warrantless entry and agree with the district court that the drug evidence obtained as a result should be suppressed.
That police “dropsy” testimony is common doesn’t mean that all of it is fabricated. People v. Moore, 2014 IL App (1st) 110793-B, 2014 Ill. App. LEXIS 262 (April 25, 2014):
[*P12] Defendant further contends police officers frequently fabricate stories (referred to as “dropsy” testimony) of criminal suspects conveniently dropping evidence in plain view of a police officer in order to circumvent the search and seizure restrictions of the fourth amendment. See People v. Ash, 346 Ill. App. 3d 809, 816 (2004) (“A ‘dropsy case’ is one in which a police officer, to avoid the exclusion of evidence on fourth-amendment grounds, falsely testifies that the defendant dropped the [evidence] in plain view ***.”). According to defendant, false “dropsy” testimony is commonplace and has become a pervasive problem that threatens the legitimacy of the justice system. Defendant supports this claim with various newspaper and law review articles that either directly or indirectly comment on the phenomenon. These reports allegedly establish the widespread nature of false “dropsy” testimony, thereby undermining the officers’ version of events. In short, defendant argues because police frequently invent such stories, Saladino and Millan cannot reasonably be believed.
Probable cause gathered by a Texas city officer outside of his city (thus jurisdiction) is not subject to suppression under the state suppression statute, Tex. Code Crim. P. Art. 38.23. Halili v. State, 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 4456 (Tex. App. – Houston (14th Dist.) April 24, 2014).*
Roving border stop 45 miles north of the Mexican border was with reasonable suspicion. “The reasonable suspicion factors here included: (1) the stop location’s characteristics, including proximity to the border; (2) traffic patterns on the road; (3) Ms. Westhoven’s travelling during the border patrol shift change; and (4) Ms. Westhoven’s driving behavior and vehicle characteristics.” United States v. Westhoven, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 7689 (10th Cir. April 24, 2014).*
Posted inBorder search, Probable cause|Comments Off on TX14: Texas city officer’s PC gathered outside city not suppressed
Verizon in January filed a legal challenge to the constitutionality of the National Security Agency’s program that collects billions of Americans’ call-detail records, but a surveillance court rejected it, according to newly declassified documents and individuals with knowledge of the matter.
In denying the phone company’s petition in March, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court Judge Rosemary M. Collyer embraced the arguments put forth by the government that the program is constitutional in light of a Supreme Court decision in 1979 that Americans have no expectation of privacy in dialing phone numbers.
Posted inFISA|Comments Off on WaPo: Surveillance court rejected Verizon challenge to NSA calls program
A resolution to add “electronic data” to the Colorado constitution’s equivalent of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution got unanimous support this week from a Senate committee.
The Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday gave a 5-0 vote to Senate Concurrent Resolution 14-002, sponsored by Sen. Greg Brophy (R-Wray) and Senate President Morgan Carroll (D-Aurora). The resolution, which asks for voter approval in November, would add “electronic data” to the list of items protected from unreasonable search and seizure in Article 2, Section 7 of the Colorado constitution.
The district judge disbelieves that the officer smelled marijuana, and suppresses the search of defendant’s car. The officer felt something was up but couldn’t articulate it. Inevitable discovery by inventory fails because there was no true inventory–no inventory was produced. United States v. Gemma, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57823 (D. Mass. April 25, 2014):
Perhaps Trooper Morris thought he smelled a faint odor of raw marijuana; perhaps the wish was father to the thought. On the evidence, I am not persuaded there was such an odor, and the government has failed in its burden on that factual issue. Rather, it is apparent from Morris’s testimony, and I find, that what really motivated the search was his suspicion that something was up and he didn’t know what. What he saw was a teenage female traveling with a male in his late-twenties, with the parties themselves giving him inconsistent information. That may be a reason for further investigation as a general matter, but it is a far bit short of probable cause to conduct a thorough search of the automobile. See United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 809 (1982) (“In this class of cases, a search is not unreasonable if based on facts that would justify the issuance of a warrant, even though a warrant has not actually been obtained.”).
This anonymous tip providing nothing compared to the car stopped, which didn’t match the description. “Absent criminal, or at least suspicious, behavior on the part of the suspect, the mere presence of the suspect in a high crime area or an area being given ‘special attention’ pursuant to a tip does nothing to create reasonable suspicion in a particular case. State v. Porter, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 86577, 2006-Ohio-4585.” Walking briskly away from the police in a high crime area isn’t reasonable suspicion. State v. Williams, 2014-Ohio-1728, 2014 Ohio App. LEXIS 1683 (8th Dist. April 24, 2014): Continue reading →
Posted inReasonable suspicion|Comments Off on OH8: Walking briskly away from the police in a high crime area isn’t reasonable suspicion
The age of “big data” has come to policing. In Chicago, police officers are paying particular attention to members of a “heat list”: those identified by a risk analysis as most likely to be involved in future violence. In Charlotte, North Carolina, the police have compiled foreclosure data to generate a map of high-risk areas that are likely to be hit by crime. In New York City, the N.Y.P.D. has partnered with Microsoft to employ a “Domain Awareness System” that collects and links information from sources like CCTVs, license plate readers, radiation sensors, and informational databases. In Santa Cruz, California, the police have reported a dramatic reduction in burglaries after relying upon computer algorithms that predict where new burglaries are likely to occur. The Department of Homeland Security has applied computer analytics to Twitter feeds to find words like “pipe bomb,” “plume,” and “listeria.” Continue reading →
Posted inInformational privacy|Comments Off on New Law Review Article: Policing By the Numbers: Big Data and the Fourth Amendment
"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.
