Cell phone records obtained by warrant are not self-authenticating under F.R.E. 902(11). More will be required. United States v. Charbonier-Laureano, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 218249 (D.P.R. Dec. 5, 2023).
The government’s knowledge fraud co-conspirators communicated by cell phone during period of the conspiracy supported a search warrant for their phones. United States v. Rosenfeld, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 218168 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 7, 2023).*
The fact spousal communications were by cell phone doesn’t destroy their confidential nature. There’s still a reasonable expectation of privacy. United States v. Candelaria, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 218310 (D.N.M. Dec. 7, 2023).*
Posted inCell phones, Privileges, Probable cause|Comments Off on D.P.R.: Cell phone records obtained by SW not self-authenticating as evidence under 902(11)
That 2254 petitioner’s state arrest was unreasonable doesn’t state grounds for relief from a conviction. Haring v. Prosise, 462 U.S. 306, 321 (1983). Ramirez v. Meisner, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 218142 (W.D. Wis. Dec. 6, 2023).
Defendant had no standing in a stolen car he claimed he did not know was stolen. The LPN didn’t belong to the car, another LPN was in the glove compartment, he said he rented it for 8 months for $200 (while the car was worth $25,000) from Charlie whose last name he did not know. On the merits, the search of the car was justified by probable cause for ownership papers that resulted in finding drugs. The search was also valid because the car would be impounded and for other reasons. United States v. Christian, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 218063 (W.D. Ky. Oct. 26, 2023),* adopted 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 216935 (W.D. Ky. Dec. 6, 2023).*
Plaintiff had no claim against a constable that executed an apparently valid capias warrant for him. Everyone else in the process was immune one way or another. Calada v. Zarate, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 32422 (5th Cir. Dec. 7, 2023).*
Defendant’s first appearance where bail was set under Gerstein was not a critical stage requiring counsel because bail could be revisited. State v. Heng, 2023 Wash. LEXIS 603 (Dec. 7, 2023).
“The government contends that [the search] was justified both as a protective search and under the emergency aid doctrine. Because we conclude that Eden’s decision was a reasonable protective search, we need not consider whether it was also justified under the emergency aid doctrine.” United States v. Wampler, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 32345 (9th Cir. Dec. 7, 2023).*
2254 petitioner’s claim was clearly barred by Stone v. Powell, so he gets no CoA. Overstreet v. Wade, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 32298 (5th Cir. Nov. 29, 2023).*
The CI was put under oath to get the warrant, so additional corroboration was not required. People v. Tucker, 2023 NY Slip Op 06280, 2023 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6369 (3d Dept. Dec. 7, 2023).*
Circuit authority can be “clearly established law” for qualified immunity. “On the well-pleaded facts of this case, Walls was not suspected of any crime, posed no immediate threat to the safety of the deputies or others, and made no attempt to actively resist arrest or evade arrest by flight. Chapman violently seized Walls only because Chapman mistakenly thought Walls was videotaping the officers. There was no evidence that Chapman’s actions were compelled by necessity and exigency. Walls was injured in the arrest and then died. Assuming the truth of the facts as pleaded, Chapman violated clearly established law.” Walls v. Sheriff’s Office of Caddo Parish, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 32241 (5th Cir. Dec. 6, 2023).*
There was at least arguable probable cause so defendants get qualified immunity. Watkins v. Session, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 32282 (11th Cir. Dec. 7, 2023).*
Without an affidavit of standing, which counsel said was forthcoming, but it never appeared, a motion to suppress in federal court in the Second Circuit doesn’t even have to be addressed. United States v. Allen, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 217397 (W.D.N.Y. Nov. 6, 2023).*
“Defendant’s request for a Franks hearing was properly summarily denied. He failed to make a ‘substantial preliminary showing’ that the purported statements he made to his wife and at the precinct relating to his ownership of the vehicle were false statements that the affiant officer ‘knowingly and intentionally’ or ‘with reckless disregard for the truth’ included in the warrant affidavit.” People v. Jimenez, 2023 NY Slip Op 06318 (1st Dept. Dec. 7, 2023).* The sentence of seven years was July 2016. The appeal was decided seven years and five months later.
Even excluding information from one source in the RICO search warrant, there was [way, way more than] probable cause for the warrant, and the Franks challenge is denied. United States v. Pulliam, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 216813 (D. Conn. Dec. 6, 2023).*
2255 petitioner’s ineffective assistance of counsel petition alleges no facts or law on the Fourth Amendment claim. Denied. United States v. Foreman, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 216845 (M.D. La. Dec. 6, 2023).*
17-year-old information from an admittedly unreliable CI who had the information two-three years before telling in 2008 coupled with a false statement in an affidavit for warrant about an identification that was just wrong did not provide probable cause for defendant’s arrest in 2022. Officers had a warrant, but it was unconstitutional because of the false statement. Trying independent source, that fails too, as does the good faith exception. State v. Lewis, 2023 Md. App. LEXIS 833 (Dec. 5, 2023).
The affidavit for warrant’s misstatements were not material to the finding of probable cause. The warrantless entry into the house did not factor into the search warrant application. United States v. Vetaw, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 216972 (D. Kan. Dec. 6, 2023).*
Under all the circumstances, defendant’s initial encounter with the officer was consensual because he was not “stopped.” Also, “We conclude that the trial court did not plainly err in denying Defendant’s pretrial motion to suppress. Even though the suppression order contains an erroneous finding of fact and conclusion of law, the trial court appropriately denied Defendant’s motion to suppress because the deputies did not violate Defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights.” State v. Williams, 2023 N.C. App. LEXIS 783 (Dec. 5, 2023).*
Posted inConsent, Franks doctrine|Comments Off on MD: False information in cold case arrest warrant suppresses statement made on arrest
An HBO film crew was doing a ride-along with the DEA and local DTF officers for the making of “Meth Storm.” Defendant raises via post-conviction that the ride-along film crew violated the Fourth Amendment and the state constitution. The court disagrees, noting that no case was cited nor found that the ride-along leads to suppression of the evidence. Wilson v. Layne was a § 1983 case. Also, a Fourth Amendment claim isn’t proper on post-conviction without an ineffective assistance claim. Harmon v. State, 2023 Ark. 179 (Dec. 7, 2023).
Speedy trial time is not tolled for a codefendant who doesn’t have his own motion to suppress under advisement. Jacobs v. State, 2023 Ark. App. 554 (Dec. 6, 2023).*
The CSLI warrant here was for a broad period of time and was largely overbroad. The government, however, gets the benefit of the good faith exception because of all the information it had in the investigation showing it was largely justified. United States v. Ali, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 216756 (D. Neb. Dec. 6, 2023).*
The officer made a DUI stop outside his jurisdiction, and state law makes that important for his authority. The statute also has Fourth Amendment implications. And, the stop was with probable cause. Because the statute had not been interpreted like this before, the court declines to apply the exclusionary rule. State v. Hoehn, 32 Neb. App. 446 (Dec. 5, 2023):
Posted inExclusionary rule, Good faith exception|Comments Off on NE declines to apply exclusionary rule to first interpretation of statute for DUI stop out of officer’s jurisdiction
The officer here was charged with malfeasance in office for violating the Fourth Amendment by handcuffing a detainee for whom he was told there was an arrest warrant after he revoked consent to search: “I have someone you can talk to, otherwise you can get the f**k off my property.” He moved to quash the indictment which the trial court denied. Appropriately applying de facto qualified immunity in criminal case: “In the instant case, as in State v. Hessler, supra, Dep. Chapman’s ‘duty to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States and the laws and Constitution of Louisiana,’ while written, do not create an affirmative duty specific enough to place any public officer on notice that handcuffing a person for officer safety during a consensual search for a subject with an outstanding arrest warrant based on a reliable tip or determining that consent to search has not been revoked in the midst of such a search in a situation such as that faced by Dep. Chapman, who was given an ambiguous, belligerent message subject to multiple interpretations after consent had been readily given, only one interpretation of which was the revocation of consent, will result of a charge of malfeasance in office.” State v. Chapman, 2023 La. App. LEXIS 2090 (La. App. 2 Cir. Dec. 6, 2023).
Defendant was invited to sit in the patrol car during writing a ticket for not having an interlock device nor the paperwork for it; his doing so was by consent. State v. Hampton, 2023 Iowa App. LEXIS 949 (Dec. 6, 2023).*
Defendant was tried and convicted of disarming a police officer who ultimately Tazed him. “[T]he State has no affirmative duty to show compliance with the Fourth Amendment as an element of this offense.” State v. Wilson, 2023 Iowa App. LEXIS 933 (Dec. 6, 2023).*
Posted inExcessive force, Qualified immunity|Comments Off on LA2: Arrest allegedly in violation of 4A leads to officer’s indictment, which is quashed because of justification
The traffic stop was valid, but the extension of the stop was not, and defendant’s statements during the stop are suppressed. “Here, the officers extended the traffic stop to ask whether there was anything ‘of concern’ or ‘illegal’ inside of Anderson’s truck.” But, these were not about officer safety concerns because defendant was outside of the vehicle. United States v. Anderson, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 216482 (D. Utah Dec. 5, 2023).
Defendant was stopped for speeding on I-80. She was in a rental car for which she was an authorized driver but didn’t rent. The officer asked about her travel plans, and it did not unreasonably extend the stop. The officer considered the answers odd. The drug dog showed within minutes and sniffed and alerted on the car, and the alert was probable cause. “Th[is] discussion leads the Court to conclude that Trooper Baltes asked permissible questions during the course of a stop. The brief extension of the stop, if any, was supported by reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. The drug sniff of the vehicle’s exterior did not constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment. Any contact between the drug dog and the vehicle, if any, was instinctive and not a trespass infringing upon any Fourth Amendment rights.” (The stop was also based on prior information that the car may be carrying drugs when it arrived on I-80 and the officer was waiting six miles across the state line.) United States v. Chacon, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 215766 (S.D. Iowa Nov. 9, 2023).*
Posted inDog sniff, Reasonable suspicion|Comments Off on D.Utah: Questions about anything of “concern” or “illegal” inside vehicle were not about officer safety
A federal wildlife officer has the authority to make a stop for speeding in a national wildlife refuge under 50 C.F.R. § 27.31(a), (d). [Virginia v. Moore goes unmentioned: The stop would not violate the Fourth Amendment in any event.] United States v. McKenzie, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 215810 (D. Ariz. Dec. 5, 2023).*
There was a shooting incident with a victim and police responded to defendant’s place. They sought entry and were denied, but they believed they had probable cause and were going to get a warrant. Concerned that evidence could be destroyed or something else happen, they reapproached and got in. The entry was not the but for cause of the warrant they already had cause for and decided to get. Moreover, nothing learned from that added to the affidavit. United States v. Vetaw, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 215974 (D. Kan. Dec. 5, 2023).*
“Even assuming, arguendo, the initial stop of the vehicle was illegal, Petitioner’s subsequent flight and shooting of Officer Collins provided probable cause for his arrest.” Therefore, there was no ineffective assistance. LeFtenant v. AG of N.Y., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 216294 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 5, 2023).*
The affidavit for search warrant isn’t in the record on appeal, so the court presumes the regularity of proceedings in the trial court. The record that was made shows that there was probable cause. State v. Hill, 2023-Ohio-4381, 2023 Ohio App. LEXIS 4215 (5th Dist. Dec. 5, 2023).
Defendant’s Franks challenge fails. Innocent explanations developed during the investigation were recounted in the affidavit, and further ones wouldn’t change the outcome. There still was probable cause. In addition, the officer didn’t relate all he had about corroborating the CI, but what was there was sufficient. Of course, “probable cause is not a high bar.” United States v. McGee, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 215837 (W.D. Mo. Dec. 5, 2023).*
In an unpublished opinion, Wisconsin states that there is no authority for the proposition that child pornography has to be stated to be in the NCMEC database for there to be probable cause. State v. Schye, 2023 Wisc. App. LEXIS 1256 (Dec. 5, 2023)* (unpublished) [This seems to be just a throwaway argument the court finds undeveloped and waived, not that it would ever succeed. And what about homemade child porn that NCMEC doesn’t have a record of yet?]
The trial court and court of appeals both erred in finding that the affidavit for search warrant was “so lacking” in probable cause that the good faith exception should not apply. “The affidavit accompanying the search warrant application explained the history of the investigation, including the fact that, eight months prior, defendant had informed officers that he lived at the Jasper Street residence, and that an arrest warrant had issued at that time for defendant in conjunction with items found in his bedroom. A fair reading of the search warrant implies an ongoing and continuing drug operation being run out of the Jasper Street residence and a connection between defendant and the residence.” Apparently defendant’s lie about ever having lived at the residence was enough. State v. James, 2023 La. LEXIS 2262 (Dec. 5, 2023), rev’g State v. James, 2023 La. App. LEXIS 917 (La. App. 5 Cir June 1, 2023) (unpublished) (Probable cause requires some current nexus to the place to be searched; the affidavit detailed events up through November 2021 but the search was July 7, 2022; was there enough on that day? This court says no.)
Once probable cause develops to search a vehicle, that can include the engine compartment. Defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for not challenging it. United States v. Maurstad, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 215714 (D. Minn. Dec. 5, 2023).*
Plaintiff was shot “[d]uring a tense police encounter.” The bodycam video shows he had his hands up just before being shot. Qualified immunity was denied, and it’s affirmed. There’s a jury question here. Lopez v. City of Riverside, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 32066 (9th Cir. Dec. 5, 2023).*
“Law enforcement officers conduct traffic stops every day. No matter how minor the apparent infraction, every traffic stop must comply with the Fourth Amendment. It wraps every person, and every traffic stop, with a cloak of constitutional protection. The Fourth Amendment also permits the consideration of officer safety when confronting a potentially dangerous situation. Weighing those concerns, we must decide whether the use of a criminal record check, lasting approximately two minutes, can be an objectively reasonable safety precaution related to the mission of the traffic stop under Rodriguez … and the Fourth Amendment. [¶] It can. We therefore will reverse the District Court’s grant of the suppression motion and remand for further consideration.” United States v. Hunter, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 32075 (3d Cir. Dec. 5, 2023) (the whole stop was eight minutes).
“Considering the facts collectively, this situation arose out of a nighttime traffic stop. … United States v. Roggeman, 279 F.3d 573, 578 (8th Cir. 2002) (holding that the fact that a traffic stop takes place at night goes to concerns about officer safety). When questioned about the presence of anything dangerous or illegal within the vehicle, Defendant on several occasions alluded to an item beneath the seat. … Further, the vehicle was registered to another individual. … Once Officer Justin learned Defendant’s identity and was able to run it through MULES, he knew that Defendant was on probation and parole for a violent felony (assault in the second degree) and a related gun offense. … See Garcia, 441 F.3d at 599 (holding that a prior drug conviction and driving a car owned by neither the passenger nor driver created reasonable suspicion); … These factors contributed to Officer Justin and Officer Trainor’s suspicion that criminal activity was afoot, and Defendant might be armed, presenting a threat to officer safety.” United States v. Miller, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 213932 (W.D. Mo. Nov. 2, 2023),* adopted, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 213928 (W.D.Mo. Dec. 1, 2023).*
Posted inReasonable suspicion, Reasonableness|Comments Off on CA3: Two minutes for a criminal records check during a traffic stop was reasonable under Rodriguez
A petition for writ of mandamus can’t be used as an interlocutory appeal of denial of a motion to suppress. [Mandamus isn’t anywhere near a possible remedy.] In re Taylor for A Writ of Mandamus, 2023 Del. LEXIS 400 (Dec. 5, 2023).
Plaintiff sued under the Fourth Amendment for her computer camera scanning her room before an examination. On her death without a personal representative coming in, the appeal is dismissed. Ogletree v. Bloomberg, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 32000 (6th Cir. Dec. 4, 2023).*
Habeas petitioner’s claim defense counsel was ineffective for not filing a motion to suppress without any supporting argument of fact or law is insufficient. Barker v. United States, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 31995 (6th Cir. Dec. 4, 2023).*
Defendant seeks unrestricted phone access without recording, but not just to his lawyer or standby counsel–every call. No First, Fourth, or Sixth Amendment violation (limited to lawyers). United States v. Cromar, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 215498 (D. Utah Dec. 4, 2023).*
Plaintiff federal inmate sued Tracfone for allegedly providing information about him to the government that helped lead to his 852 month sentence for sex trafficking. The statute of limitations for violations of the Stored Communications Act is two years, and the pleadings in this criminal case show that he knew about it more than two years before filing suit. Thus, the claim is barred. Boyle v. Tracfone Wireless, Inc., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 214031 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 1, 2023).*
The totality of information in the search warrant showed an ongoing enterprise, so the information wasn’t stale. State v. Williams, 2023-Ohio-4344 (6th Dist. Dec. 1, 2023).*
Plaintiff inmate claims to have an allergy. The prison wanted to draw blood to confirm. “Plaintiff has failed to state a claim that the Defendants violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures when they drew and tested his blood for an allergy of which he complained.” Middlebrook v. Wellman, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 213864 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 1, 2023).*
Plaintiff inmate’s claims his restraints when he moves in the prison are unreasonable. This doesn’t state a claim. Petion v. Chevalier, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 213927 (D. Conn. Dec. 1, 2023).*
Plaintiff’s placement in RHU didn’t deprive him of any Fourth, Eighth, or Fourteenth Amendment rights. Gorrio v. Terra, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 215323 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 4, 2023).*
Posted inPrison and jail searches|Comments Off on W.D.Mich.: Inmate can’t claim a medical condition and then refuse testing on 4A grounds
Some of the items seized under the warrant were named or were covered by plain view when the police got inside. Some are excludable, but they aren’t returned because the government intends to forfeit. United States v. Abdul-Latif, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 214141 (E.D. Tenn. Nov. 7, 2023), adopted, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 213234 (E.D. Tenn. Nov. 30, 2023).
Defendant failed to meet his burden of pleading and proof on his ineffective assistance of counsel claim that counsel failed to move to suppress the search of a bar surveillance recording device. The police had it voluntarily from the bar owner along with the password to get into it. A search warrant was obtained for it that wasn’t promptly executed. There’s no requirement under state law that the state’s failure to search it promptly leads to suppression. [Standing to challenge the search isn’t even mentioned.] Mohr v. State, 2023 Ga. App. LEXIS 553 (Dec. 1, 2023).*
Without a transcript of the suppression hearing for appeal, there’s nothing to rule on. Denial of motion to suppress affirmed. State v. Crain, 2023 Ohio App. LEXIS 4167 (5th Dist. Nov. 30, 2023).*
Defendant was on GPS electronic monitoring while on probation. The search of his EM device to prove he was involved in a robbery was not unreasonable. Moreover, even if the probation department’s regulations were somehow violated, the exclusionary rule should not be applied. Young v. United States, 2023 D.C. App. LEXIS 325 (Nov. 30, 2023).
The defendant officer had qualified immunity for killing plaintiff’s pitbull that had attacked another dog and children and was coming at the officer. Eady v. Bryant, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 213237 (E.D. Tenn. Nov. 30, 2023).*
Defendant’s cell phone was searched at JFK two separate times based on reasonable suspicion that there was information on it of bank fraud, aggravated identity theft, and money laundering. It was also done in good faith. United States v. Alisigwe, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 213415 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 30, 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.
