Defendant was a squatter in a building with posted sign warning it was substandard and unsafe. He had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the premises. United States v. Guzman, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 550 (D.N.M. Jan. 2, 2024).
Michael Cohen’s Bivens claim of retaliatory arrest presents a new context, and post-Bivens cases all counsel against extending it to this situation, too. Cohen v. Trump, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 7 (2d Cir. Jan. 2, 2024).
The officer’s misstatement as to where defendant’s gun was found was a mere mistake and not intended to mislead. The USMJ finds the officer otherwise credible, and the warrant was based on probable cause. United States v. Roberts, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 231539 (W.D. Tenn. Nov. 15, 2023),* adopted, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 502 (W.D. Tenn. Jan. 2, 2024).*
When you live with a probationer with a Fourth Amendment waiver, your stuff in the premises is likely subject to search, too. Here, it’s decided on defendant’s failure to object to his alleged implied consent [like he knew he could] or the PO’s exceeding his authority [not developed below or here]. Martin v. State, 2024 Ga. App. LEXIS 1 (Jan. 2, 2024).
Appellant’s claim that seizure of property to levy on a civil judgment was a Fourth Amendment violation wasn’t raised in the trial court, so it’s not considered on appeal. Turnbull-Wheatley v. Turnbull, 2023 VI 17, 2023 V.I. Supreme LEXIS 23 (Dec. 29, 2023).*
The probable cause showing for this warrant was sufficient for a reasonable belief the warrant was valid so the good faith exception applies, too. United States v. Burns, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112 (D. Neb. Jan. 2, 2024).*
Posted inGood faith exception, Seizure|Comments Off on GA: Probationer’s housemate didn’t object to probation search, so it was valid as to him, too
Here there were two search warrants: One for suite E and another for both suites D & E to be sure they were searching the right premises. Execution of the suite E warrant led officers to get another for both. (a) Then, the suite E warrant was accidently destroyed. The trial court found that it existed at the time of the search and was valid, and it was destroyed without bad faith. (b) The execution of the warrant was reasonable and the search was valid. (c) The issuing judge wrote in the time of the first warrant because he thought it related back. The failure to have the exact time for the combined warrant was neither error nor bad faith. (d) Two affiants were listed in the affidavit but only one appeared to sign it. This also was not error because it was signed under oath. Moore v. State, 2024 Miss. App. LEXIS 1 (Jan. 2, 2024):
Posted inReasonableness, Warrant execution, Warrant papers|Comments Off on MS: One of two SWs for def’s business was accidentally destroyed but not in bad faith; officers getting second SW were justified
Defendant was on parole for felony DUI when he became a suspect in a child pornography case. His parole officer authorized a search of his computer hard drive for child pornography, and defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for not challenging the lack of a warrant. State v. Carter, 2023 S.D. 67, 2023 S.D. LEXIS 143 (Dec. 28, 2023). [This shows just how sweeping the probation and parole search authority can be.]
Defendant’s car, suspected in a home invasion robbery, was searched by his wife’s consent, and a bank robbery note was found. He said she hardly ever drove it. “Here, both Defendant and his wife had mutual use of the property by virtue of joint access. M.H. purchased the vehicle, was the registered owner and insurance policyholder, made the vehicle’s monthly payments, drove it several times, had access to a spare key, had joint property in the vehicle (a child’s car seat), was the sole person who could retrieve the vehicle after its impoundment, and subsequently sold it.” United States v. Candelaria, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 231032 (D.N.M. Dec. 28, 2023).*
A license plate frame that partially obscured the state’s name was not an offense, so the stop was invalid. The officer knew it was a Nevada plate by looking at it, and he could run the information. Otherwise, it lends to arbitrary enforcement. McCord v. State, 2023 Nev. LEXIS 50 (Dec. 28, 2023).*
Osborn v. United States, 385 U.S. 323, 87 S.Ct. 429, 439, 17 L.Ed.2d 394) (1966) (Douglas dissenting), Hoffa v. United States, 385 U.S. 293, 87 S.Ct. 408, 17 L.Ed.2d 374 (1966) (concurring in part with Clark), Lewis v. United States, 385 U.S. 206, 87 S.Ct. 424, 17 L.Ed.2d 312 (1966) (dissenting).
He said that dissenting and concurring in part in three cases decided together on December 12, 1966. And Osborn wasn’t even a Fourth Amendment case; the others were. Osborn was an entrapment case involving attempted bribery of a juror in the upcoming Jimmy Hoffa trial. In Osborn, a law enforcement officer moonlighting as a private investigator had criminal defense lawyer Osborn inquire about getting to a potential juror who happened to be related to the officer. Rightly concerned, the officer told the FBI who contacted a district court judge, and then two district judges authorized wiring the officer with a recorder to capture the conversation so there would be no credibility contest on what was going to be said (which the Court happened to mention was “particular” in its scope).
Douglas’s complaints were real but seem quaint by today’s tech standards and development in the law. By the late 1980s, drug task forces here were videoing drug transactions when they were invited in for the drug deal.
This isn’t remembered like Brandeis’s “For good or ill will” about “government becomes a lawbreaker” quote in dissent in Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 485, 48 S. Ct. 564, 72 L. Ed. 2d 944 (1928), but still …. That was 57 years ago, and he saw something coming faster than we did.* ________ *Just FYI, the automobile exception is 99 years old this year. Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 45 S. Ct. 280, 69 L. Ed. 2d 543 (1925).
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on “We are rapidly entering the age of no privacy, where everyone is open to surveillance at all times; where there are no secrets from government. The aggressive breaches of privacy by the Government increase by geometric proportions.”
Defendant’s probation officer was not a “stalking horse” for the police in this probation search. They both had their reasons for the search. Following most of the circuits addressing the issue, the search can precede the arrest. United States v. Ortiz, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 230998 (D.P.R. Dec. 28, 2023).*
Defendant’s probable cause issue is framed differently than in the trial court, but the state does not argue waiver. The court will go to the merits. The affidavit for warrant based on IP address doesn’t need to exclude other people as the potential downloaders of the information. This also applies to his lack of nexus argument. The question is “substantial basis” not beyond doubt. There was certainly probable cause here. Sloan v. State, 2023 Ind. App. LEXIS 364 (Dec. 29, 2023).*
There was probable cause and the vehicle was mobile, so the automobile exception applies. United States v. Hightower, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 231035 (S.D. Ga. Dec. 7, 2023), adopted, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 229655 (S.D. Ga. Dec. 27, 2023).*
NYTimes: Your Car Is Tracking You. Abusive Partners May Be, Too. by Kashmir Hill (”Apps that remotely track and control cars are being weaponized by abusive partners. Car manufacturers have been slow to respond, according to victims and experts.” If abusive partners can, the government can. Five years ago, I had a client, a passenger in a rental car, who contended the car’s GPS would prove he wasn’t in on the escapade in the critical beginning. They finally searched the GPS and proved him right, and he was dismissed out.)
Posted inGPS / Tracking Data|Comments Off on NYTimes: Your Car Is Tracking You. Abusive Partners May Be, Too.
Defendant was transported to the hospital after a vehicle accident. The officer was attempting to talk to him. Defendant was lethargic and had a hard time answering questions. About 45 minutes into the hospital stay, he passed out. Blood was drawn without a search warrant. The court finds no exigency, and, since the statutes weren’t complied with, no good faith exception. People v. Alvarez, 2023 Cal. App. LEXIS 1001 (4th Dist. Dec. 29, 2023).
Defendant was advertising for prostitution. The officer here responded to her internet ad which included her hotel room address. She answered the door nude and invited him in to talk about services and prices. He was recording it all with a hidden recorder. The entry to the room was constitutionally permissible by consent, and there was no reasonable expectation of privacy against recording. The state constitutional argument that a more stringent standard should apply is rejected. Commonwealth v. Edwards, 2023 PA Super 277, 2023 Pa. Super. LEXIS 636 (Dec. 28, 2023).*
Officer’s reasonably relied on defendant’s girlfriend’s apparent authority to enter his apartment. She called 911 about what she described as a domestic assault where he struck her face. When police arrived, she was outside the apartment sitting on the stairs. The first officer asked if the person who assaulted her was inside. She opened the door and let them in. This was a showing of apparent authority under Illinois v. Rodriguez. The court noted exigent circumstances wasn’t asserted by the state. Alexander v. State, 2023 WY 127, 2023 Wyo. LEXIS 129 (Dec. 28, 2023).
The citizen informant here was identified, provided sufficient detail, and didn’t need to be further corroborated. State v. Rowland, 2023-Ohio-4806 (7th Dist. Dec. 28, 2023).*
The officer’s preliminary examination testimony alone shows that the inventory here was reasonable and in accord with department policy. Therefore, there was no ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to challenge it. People v. Pokriefka, 2023 Mich. App. LEXIS 9583 (Dec. 28, 2023).*
The district court denied suppression of the search of defendant’s backpack on him at the time of his arrest based on a 1975 case, Eatherton, post-Chimel, Robinson, and Edwards. The court finds that case was not undermined by Chadwick and Gant and even Riley. The backpack was immediately associated with him. The court admits that it is driven as much by the “law of the circuit” rationale that Eatherton is not clearly wrong after nearly 50 years of litigation. Casting aside Eatherton has to come from the court en banc or SCOTUS. Affirmed. United States v. Perez, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 34445 (1st Cir. Dec. 28, 2023) (2-1).
Defendant had standing to contest the seizure and search of a fanny pack found in his backyard where he threw it from inside. Thus, it was not within his immediate control for search incident, albeit 10′ away. No other exceptions (inventory, plain feel, inevitable discovery) apply. The protective sweep of the premises after defendant was face down and handcuffed wasn’t reasonable. They knew he had a prior for firearms, but that alone isn’t enough. There was no suggestion another person was inside. United States v. Santos, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 230459 (D.P.R. Dec. 27, 2023).
Posted inSearch incident|Comments Off on Two search incidents based on containers
Defendant only consented to a patdown, not a full search of his person. “As Officer Murphy reached into Carter’s jacket pocket, he asked, ‘Nothing on you is gonna poke, prick, or stab me?’ Carter replied, ‘No, sir.’ This exchange did not expand the scope of Carter’s consent beyond a search for weapons. Rather, Officer Murphy merely sought Carter’s assurance that he would not be injured by any sharp objects as he searched Carter for weapons.” Carter v. Commonwealth, 2023 Va. App. LEXIS 850 (Dec. 28, 2023).
“In his brief, Mr. Hayes challenges these ‘findings’ and argues they are not supported by competent, credible evidence. However, in reviewing the dash camera video, body camera video, and Officer Miracle’s testimony at the suppression hearing, this Court disagrees. Mr. Hayes did, in fact, cause his vehicle to travel off the road, go through several lawns, hit a mailbox and flower bed, crash into a guardrail and hit a tractor. When asked how the accident happened, Mr. Hayes could not give a logical answer and responded, ‘just don’t know.’” And, he exhibited all the signs of being DUI when stopped. State v. Hayes, 2023-Ohio-4769 (9th Dist. Dec. 27, 2023).*
By law, the State Controller has possession of abandoned property. This was not an unreasonable seizure. Rider v. Cal. State Controller, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 229461 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 27, 2023).*
Posted inPrivileges, Third Party Doctrine|Comments Off on techdirt: Every Major Pharmacy Chain Is Giving The Government Warrantless Access To Medical Records
“There is no evidence to demonstrate that any omission of Mr. Daleo’s prior statement in the probable cause affidavits was intentional. Further, we find the applications demonstrate that the attesting officers had reasonable grounds to believe that defendant’s residence and cell phone may have evidence of the crime at issue-including text or other cell phone communication to show the ‘arrangements’ or planning of the crime following defendant’s presence in the home while performing air conditioning work. We also find that the warrants were not so lacking of indicia of probable cause that the magistrate’s belief in its existence was entirely unreasonable.” Accordingly, the good faith exception applies, too. State v. Key, 2023 La. App. LEXIS 2218 (La. App. 5 Cir. Dec. 27, 2023).*
“Although Officer Keller did not give a Miranda warning to the Defendant before asking if the Defendant was a convicted felon, Officer Keller already had reasonable suspicion to briefly detain and investigate the Defendant. Officer Keller testified that after taking the Defendant into custody, he conducted a criminal history search, which identified the Defendant as a convicted felon and as having a suspended driver’s license.” The handgun in plain view was lawfully seized. State v. Washington, 2023 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 518 (Dec. 27, 2023).*
Posted inCustody, Franks doctrine|Comments Off on LA5: Omission wasn’t material for Franks and it was only negligent, if anything
Defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for not challenging a social media account search warrant issued in Ohio on a California server. The SCA contemplates this, and California law directs computer companies to honor process from other states. Defendant can’t win on the merits. State v. Boyd, 2023-Ohio-4725, 2023 Ohio App. LEXIS 4532 (7th Dist. Dec. 18, 2023).
Despite being briefly knocked unconscious from a traffic accident, defendant came to and was oriented as to where he was and mostly what happened, but for the collision itself. The trial court found that he consented because he told others and he was experienced at this, having had a prior conviction for the same offense, DUI drugs. State v. Andrews, 2023 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 517 (Dec. 27, 2023).*
An arson investigator came to the scene of working fire because it was a duplex and people were inside when the fire started. Walking through, he could smell an accelerant, so he stopped and applied for a warrant. [The search is not an issue.] State v. Thomas, 2023 La. App. LEXIS 2222 (La. App. 5 Cir. Dec. 27, 2023).*
Defendant’s Franks challenge fails. “At the hearing, Hill presented nothing to establish that this inconsistency was anything other than a negligent typographical error. While he maintained that the affidavits were riddled with falsehoods, he was unable—despite repeated questioning—to pinpoint any specific false statement.” United States v. Hill, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 229627 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 5, 2023).*
When the place to be searched is a stash house, there’s no requirement that the government actually know that drugs are being sold out of it. The question is probable cause to believe contraband will be found there. This was an anticipatory warrant, and there was probable cause if the triggering condition occurred, which it did. United States v. Coffey, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 229231 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 26, 2023).*
Tossing a bag out of a car as a traffic stop was happening was a loss of any reasonable expectation of privacy in it. United States v. Gregory, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 229427 (E.D.N.C. Nov. 9, 2023),* adopted, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 229325 (E.D.N.C. Dec. 27, 2023).*
Standing in commercial property, even run by defendants, is evaluated differently than in residential property, more on a case-by-case basis. Defendants make a Franks challenge to the warrant, but they fail on standing in this commercial space. United States v. Galecki, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 34296 (9th Cir. Dec. 27, 2023) (this appeal was pending 24½ months after argument; it has a 2020 case number):
Hot pursuit was shown for entry into defendant’s home after a trail of evidence led officers there. At the door they could see young children inside and someone on the stairs even though the woman answering the door insisted no one else was there. United States v. Maxwell, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 34274 (8th Cir. Dec. 27, 2023). [This reads like classic hot pursuit from the early days of the doctrine.]
“An officer’s authority to detain and arrest is dictated by statute and caselaw. Yet, Appellant does not identify similar authority governing an officer’s power to interview a suspect or motorist involved in an accident outside that officer’s jurisdiction. Thus, Appellant fails to show a violation of his constitutional rights, and as such, there was no prejudice from his counsel’s alleged failure to file a motion to suppress.” In addition, the exclusionary rule is reserved for constitutional violations, not this. State v. Bruce, 2023-Ohio-4719 (7th Dist. Dec. 22, 2023).* [And how is an interview necessarily a seizure?]
Defendant had standing in the hotel room he was permitted to stay in by the actual renter. He had clothes and other belongings there. He also had standing in a storage building he rented despite its use to hold contraband. “Because I have concluded the evidence in the search warrant affidavit was not stale and that the affidavit established a sufficient nexus between the crimes being investigated and the properties to be searched, I need not consider the parties’ alternate arguments regarding the application of the good faith doctrine.” United States v. Holiday, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 229314 (N.D. Ohio Dec. 27, 2023).*
Defendant was stopped for suspected DUI and a warrant check was called for. The officer promptly learned that defendant wasn’t DUI, but it was reasonable to still wait for the warrant check to be completed, here just a couple of minutes. United States v. Wiggins, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 228394 (W.D. Okla. Dec. 22, 2023).
Defendant was stopped because the officers asserted they had reasonable suspicion defendant was driving on a suspended license and illegally possessed a gun. The government failed to prove its justification for license stop, and there was no more than a hunch on the gun. United States v. Jones, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 228400 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 22, 2023).*
2254 petitioner’s claim that his arrest was without probable cause is not cognizable in habeas. Yocom v. Allison, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 228495 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 22, 2023).*
Posted inIssue preclusion, Reasonable suspicion, Reasonableness|Comments Off on W.D.Okla.: When officer’s observation obviates the reason for the stop, the already initiated warrant check can be completed
Police were sent to defendant’s house/dentist office on a report of his menacing with a firearm. Defendant came out and submitted. The entry into the house for exigency or protective sweep was not shown by the state to be justified. The mere theory that someone else could have entered the house in the meantime isn’t enough for a sweep. As to apparent authority to consent, the police did not resolve the ambiguity in whether defendant’s wife when she told them they were separated, and that he threw her stuff out of the house, could consent. She did have authority to enter the garage to take care of a pet. People v. Carey, 2023 NY Slip Op 51419(U), 2023 NYLJ LEXIS 3554, 2023 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 23238 (Nassau Co. Dec. 11, 2023).*
Defendant consented to the police entry. They asked if they could all talk inside, and he allowed them in. Contraband was in plain view. State v. Hartfield, 2023-Ohio-4708 (3d Dist. Dec. 26, 2023).*
2255 petitioner already lost on direct appeal on standing on his claim that the U.S. unlawfully obtaining data from a server in the Netherlands under MLAT. That’s law of the case and now can’t be ineffective assistance of counsel. Loera v. United States, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 229234 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 26, 2023).*
Defendant’s GPS monitoring while on D.C. parole was unauthorized without an order from the sentencing court. It also doesn’t fit under Knights and Samson and special needs. Therefore, its use here to connect defendant to a crime is suppressed. Davis v. United States, 2023 D.C. App. LEXIS 348 (Dec. 21, 2023) (2-1, and under submission for 23 months).
In a Covid vaccination case from Washington State, “Plaintiffs forfeited their privacy claim under the federal constitution—whether it is raised as a substantive due process right or as a Fourth Amendment right. Starting with the Fourth Amendment, Plaintiffs waived that right by failing to ‘specifically and distinctly argue[]’ the issue in their opening brief.” Pilz v. Inslee, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 34021 (9th Cir. Dec. 22, 2023).*
Pittsburgh Port Authority police approached decedent about drinking in public, and a struggle ensued. He pulled a knife and the standoff lasted about 20 minutes. He refused to drop the knife, ultimately stabbing the police dog. From 8′ away the officers fired, killing him. They get qualified immunity. Kelley v. O’Malley, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 34031 (3d Cir. Dec. 22, 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.
