“As a warrant was required for the officers to lawfully enter the home, and no warrant had been issued when the officers entered the home and encountered Defendant, the officers’ entry into the home was unlawful. Thus, the State failed to prove that the officers whom Defendant resisted were discharging or attempting to discharge an official duty at the time they encountered Defendant, see Sinclair, 191 N.C. App. at 489, 663 S.E.2d at 870, and the trial court erred by denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss.” Henderson Cty. v. Peacock, 2023 N.C. App. LEXIS 731 (Nov. 21, 2023).*
“Here, the record establishes that defendant consented to the search of his vehicle with the understanding that, if he refused, the detective would obtain a warrant and search the vehicle anyway, and that in the meantime the vehicle would be detained at the scene. We note that a suspect’s consent to search that is based on threatened action by the police is deemed voluntary only where there are valid legal grounds for the threatened action.” Here, there was nothing close to probable cause for defendant’s stop. The police had vague information from a CI but, essentially, what defendant did didn’t match anything a drug courier would do so there was zero corroboration [one could say it all could have disproved the CI’s tale, but maybe that’s going too far]. People v. Barner, 2023 NY Slip Op 05839, 2023 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5901 (4th Dept. Nov. 17, 2023).*
Posted inArrest or entry on arrest, Consent|Comments Off on NC: Officer who made illegal entry was not discharging “official duty” when he was assaulted
The affidavit for the warrant here did, in fact, show probable cause and nexus from the informant’s reports corroborated by observations of the officers. The lack of a success rate by the CI wasn’t as important when he was corroborated by a controlled buy from the premises. State v. Randolph, 2023 La. App. LEXIS 1998 (La. App. 4 Cir Nov. 20, 2023).
On the totality, the officers did not provide justification for handcuffing defendant and keeping him handcuffed after detaining him and his luggage after he got off a Trailways bus in Omaha. Defendant declined a search, and the officer said a dog sniff was going to occur. He was detained for a while and finally they got a warrant for his backpack. “The investigators may understandably be worried about attempted altercations or the like while conducting investigative stops and searches of travelers. But the Fourth Amendment does not permit the routine use of handcuffs as an unyielding matter of policy during an investigatory stop. Under this logic, ‘officers would be allowed to handcuff, frisk, and detain virtually every suspect they encounter, without regard to the nature of the crime, the behavior exhibited by the suspect, or the circumstances surrounding the alleged crime, under the pretext of officer safety. Terry does not permit such intrusive measures in the absence of any objective safety concerns.’ …” United States v. Onate, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 207215 (D. Neb. Nov. 20, 2023).*
The court declines to grant third-party standing in another’s cell phone, while defendant recognizes it is settled that he has no standing. People v. Banks, 2023 Cal. App. LEXIS 896 (2d Dist. Nov. 20, 2023).*
There was probable cause for the search of defendant’s tractor trailer without a warrant. United States v. Gutierrez, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 30842 (5th Cir. Nov. 20, 2023).*
The bodycam video of plaintiff’s altercation with two hospital security guards showed they were entitled to qualified immunity. Scott v. Harris. Bouvier v. City of Covington, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 30822 (11th Cir. Nov. 20, 2023).*
In excessive force cases, “it has recognized that officers often find it difficult to determine how the Fourth Amendment’s general reasonableness standard applies to the particular factual circumstances confronting them. See Ziglar, 582 U.S. at 151.” Thus, there’s qualified immunity. Omeish v. Kincaid, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 30403 (4th Cir. Nov. 15, 2023).*
“In sum, there is no genuine dispute that the officers had reasonable suspicion to detain Ometu during the first part of their investigation, and they acted reasonably in handcuffing him and attempting to transport him to Davenport’s apartment. After that, Ometu’s conduct provided the officers with probable cause to arrest. Accordingly, Ometu cannot show a constitutional violation, and Officers Day and Serna are entitled to qualified immunity, and hence summary judgment, on Ometu’s claims of unlawful seizure and false imprisonment.” Ometu v. City of San Antonio, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 205644 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 15, 2023).*
An officer sought a Temporary Extreme Risk Protection Order (TERPO) under NYS law for defendant’s allegedly pointing a gun at his alleged victims from a car. This is a civil remedy, and, here, it did not provide any protection under the Fourth Amendment or state constitution from unreasonable searches and seizures. “This order is overbroad and lacks particularity. It does not identify the specific offense for which the police have established probable cause, it does not describe the place to be searched and it does not specify the items to be seized by their relation to a designated crime …. While the application provides slightly more information it also lacks sufficient particularity to satisfy the requirements of CPL 690 and the Federal and State Constitutions.” It also did not incorporate other documents or facts to supply what’s necessary. People v. A.O., 2023 NY Slip Op 23356, 2023 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 20099 (Erie Co. Sept. 23, 2023).
Officers working the Kansas City Greyhound station had already had a dog sniff luggage. When defendant approached a bag that the dog had alerted on, they asked if he was carrying cash or drugs, which he denied. They asked if they could search it, and he said “Yeah. Search it.” Then he asked if he could go to the bathroom to brush his teeth. That concerned the officers that he’d attempt to flee or destroy evidence, so he could be handcuffed. United States v. Bonilla, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 30754 (8th Cir. Nov. 20, 2023).*
Posted inParticularity, Seizure|Comments Off on NY Erie Co.: Temporary Extreme Risk Protection Order didn’t satisfy 4A for criminal case
Officers had two search warrants for Gray’s place, and defendant complained that the warrant described things common to any home. There was probable cause for that stuff, and there’s no requirement of a more specific description. State v. Knotts, 2023 W. Va. LEXIS 477 (Nov. 17, 2023). [Why no standing?]
There was probable cause for a vehicle search, so the question of whether there was a reasonable expectation of privacy in a stolen car doesn’t have to be decided. United States v. Vittetoe, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 30751 (8th Cir. Nov. 20, 2023).*
The state showed probable cause to obtain defendant’s CSLI to seek to link him to the crime. People v. Cruz, 2023 NY Slip Op 05802, 2023 NY Slip Op 05802 (4th Dept. Nov. 17, 2023).*
“The Court finds that the People have failed to satisfy their burden of proving that the warrantless arrest of Defendant was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment because the People have failed to show that the police’s warrantless search satisfied any of the warrant exceptions. The evidence that Defendant seeks to suppress is therefore the fruit of an unconstitutional seizure and will be suppressed.” His statements thereafter too. People v. England, 2023 V.I. LEXIS 51 (Super. Ct. Nov. 16, 2023).*
Defendant was ultimately accused of theft of government funds and false statements about his VA benefits. A phone call with an informant was recorded. He claims he thought it was a clinician with whom he had a reasonable expectation of privacy, but the district court said no, and that’s affirmed. United States v. Hoover, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 30731 (11th Cir. Nov. 20, 2023).*
This FTC subpoena for bank records is permitted under the Fourth Amendment. FTC v. Jones, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 205887 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 2023),* adopted, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 204882 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2023).*
The exclusionary rule does not apply in juvenile revocations of the adult portion of the suspended sentence. In re R.C., 2023-Ohio-4149 (1st Dist. Nov. 17, 2023).*
Defendant was the subject of a 14 month drug investigation culminating in the challenged search warrant. There was probable cause and no material omissions. Some information might be called stale, but the ongoing crime kept it all current. State v. Taylor, 2023-Ohio-4160, 2023 Ohio App. LEXIS 3996 (5th Dist. Nov. 17, 2023).*
Even though defendant apparently wasn’t driving impaired, once validly stopped, the officer could run DL and LPN checks. The dog sniff didn’t prolong the stop at all. United States v. Drayton, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 206461 (N.D. Iowa Oct. 10, 2023).*
A search warrant wasn’t required for the state to get defendant’s jail phone calls about harming a witness. State v. Bartell, 2023 Del. Super. LEXIS 880 (Nov. 17, 2023).*
“In reviewing the totality of the circumstances, the Court concludes the affidavit supporting the warrant sufficiently establishes probable cause that Defendant’s cellphone was involved in the March 11 shooting, Defendant was in possession of that cellphone, and the cellphone had potentially relevant evidence. Defendant’s cellphone’s connection to the geographic area around the time of the incident, Defendant’s association with the gang and its members involved in the incident, and Defendant’s prior criminal history created a fair inference that the cellphone would contain evidence related to the March 11 incident and potential violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(c).” United States v. Dacruz, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 206775 (D.R.I. Nov. 17, 2023).*
Defendant was seen driving fast in a parking lot near a bar after 2 am. Officers parked near him and approached on foot. They shined their flashlights on the driver from both sides. The use of flashlights was not a seizure. State v. Wittenberg, 2023 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 85 (Nov. 17, 2023).
Defendant was parked in front of a house at night and the homeowner called to report a suspicious vehicle. An officer drove up along side the car and a door opened and the officer stopped. He shined the patrol car’s spotlight on the driver and then got out to talk to him. This was not a seizure, as several Eighth Circuit cases have held. State v. Cyrus, 2023 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 84 (Nov. 17, 2023).
Posted inSeizure|Comments Off on IA: Shining flashlights or patrol car spotlights on driver in an already parked car is not a seizure
Defendant’s plea agreement foreclosed his Rule 41(g) motion for return of property. United States v. Spencer, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 206257 (D. Mass. Nov. 17, 2023).
Defendant’s motion to reconsider denial of his motion to suppress the timeliness of his cell phone search and raise a new circuit case was denied as untimely. The circuit court merely followed two other decisions, one of which was a decade ago, so the argument was available to the defense. United States v. Purbeck, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 205509 (N.D. Ga. Oct. 25, 2023),* adopted, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 204241 (N.D. Ga. Nov. 14, 2023).*
Defendant consented to a search of his wallet when he handed it over to the officer. “True, the officer’s precise wording—‘Let me see [the wallet] for a moment’—could, in some contexts, perhaps be viewed as a command. But in the circumstances here, it was not clear error for the district court to find otherwise.” (concurring opinion) United States v. Tellez, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 30657 (6th Cir. Nov. 17, 2023).*
2254 petitioner’s search claim is barred by Stone. Thomas v. Taskila, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 30660 (6th Cir. Nov. 16, 2023).*
Plaintiff had no reasonable expectation of privacy in a computer given him by Goodwill for whom he worked while he was living in a halfway house. He was still an inmate of the BOP. “There is no reasonable or legitimate expectation of privacy in contraband brought into a Bureau-of-Prisons-controlled facility as a matter of law. The Bureau of Prisons is empowered to ‘summarily seize any object introduced into a Federal penal or correctional facility or possessed by an inmate of such a facility in violation of a rule, regulation or order promulgated by the Director, and such object shall be forfeited to the United States. 18 U.S.C.A. § 4012. Smith was prohibited from returning to GEO with anything he did not take with him when leaving GEO. 28 C.F.R. § 570.38(c)(10). Yet Smith returned to GEO with a laptop computer and hotspot adaptor he did not possess when he left GEO.” Smith v. Goodwill of the S.F. Bay, Inc., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 205843 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2023).
“[W]here probable cause exists, a warrantless public arrest based on an investigative alert or an instruction to arrest from the investigating officer is constitutional, so long as it is supported by probable cause. Accordingly, the trial court properly denied Mr. Streater’s motion to quash his arrest and suppress the evidence.” People v. Streater, 2023 IL App (1st) 220640, 2023 Ill. App. LEXIS 416 (Nov. 17, 2023).* [This should not be a remarkable holding, but it recognizes a split in the Illinois appellate courts.]
A person hospitalized after having been shot by the police is not per se “in custody” for Miranda purposes. The reason for the shooting was the safety of the officers and others, not custody. Tennessee v. Garner isn’t even close, and it is really distinguishable. State v. Jessop, 2023 Utah App. LEXIS 137 (Nov. 16, 2023).
Defendant had standing to challenge the search of another person’s property that he spent the previous night at and kept some clothes and did laundry there. Pole camera surveillance put him there overnight, too. The warrant particularly described “electronic equipment” and “electronic devices including cell phones.” There was also probable cause for the warrant. United States v. Spruell-Ussery, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 204553 (D. Kan. Nov. 15, 2023).*
Defendant’s stop was constitutional. Even if it wasn’t, his statements to the officer were sufficiently attenuated from the stop to be admissible. United States v. Drayton, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 205329 (N.D. Iowa Nov. 16, 2023).*
Defendant’s statements were inadmissible in the government’s case in chief, but they can be used for impeachment if defendant testifies. United States v. King, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 205372 (D. Nev. Nov. 16, 2023).*
Posted inAttenuation, Custody, Particularity, Standing|Comments Off on UT: Being hospitalized having been shot by police isn’t “custody” for Miranda purposes
Defendant had a Glock fully auto switch in his mouth while in the hospital. While treating him, the medical staff finally got him to spit it out. That was not a search. The medical staff were not government actors for Fourth Amendment purposes. United States v. Hudson, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 30579 (7th Cir. Nov. 16, 2023).
Defendant’s guilty plea waived all pretrial issues, including his suppression motion. People v. Johnson, 2023 NY Slip Op 05754 (3d Dept. Nov. 16, 2023).*
2255 petitioner doesn’t show how his Fourth Amendment ineffective assistance of counsel claim would even prevail. “Thus, had the evidence been successfully suppressed at trial, it still could have been considered for the purposes of sentencing. The outcome of Fulk’s sentencing would not have changed and no prejudice exists.” United States v. Fulk, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 205356 (N.D. Ind. Nov. 16, 2023).*
Defendant filed a motion for the court to rescind the search warrant for his cell phone under Rule 41(g) because it was allegedly defective. The remedy is a motion to suppress, not to rescind. United States v. Cardenas, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 205563 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 16, 2023).
“Even though the affidavit arguably was conclusory with regard to the connection between Shelton’s cellphone and criminal activity, it was not so lacking in indicia of probable cause that no reasonable officer would have relied upon it.” United States v. Shelton, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 30359 (8th Cir. Nov. 15, 2023).*
At the time of the raid, defendant’s cell phone was in plain view and there was justification for it to be seized for follow up search. United States v. White, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 204243 (N.D. Ga. Nov. 15, 2023).*
The CI’s information wasn’t enough alone, but it was corroborated enough by trash pulls and other police work. United States v. Woznichak, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 204338 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 15, 2023).*
NYT: Talks on Surveillance Law Simmer as Its Expiration Date Looms by Charlie Savage (“Negotiations in Congress over a warrantless surveillance law are intensifying as it nears its expiration date. The debate has come during what national security officials say is a surge in threats fueled by the Israel-Hamas war. But whether lawmakers will reach consensus and pass any bill that would renew the law, known as Section 702, before the deadline on New Year’s Eve remains far from clear.”)
Posted inFISA|Comments Off on NYT: Talks on Surveillance Law Simmer as Its Expiration Date Looms
The fact state officers might have violated state law in executing the warrant wasn’t material to the Fourth Amendment reasonableness requirement. United States v. Miske, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 203981 (D. Haw. Nov. 14, 2023).*
There was reasonable suspicion or likely probable cause for defendant’s stop for a traffic offense. While that car was out of sight for a few moments, its description and proximity was enough for the stop. United States v. Hutchins, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 30303 (6th Cir. Nov. 13, 2023).*
Defendant’s stop was based on not having an LPN on his motorcycle a couple of days before. This time, however, he had a license plate, but now he’s without a DL and gave a false name. The extension of the stop was reasonable. United States v. Evans, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 204039 (D.N.M. Nov. 13, 2023).*
The district court found that the officer made the decision to seek a warrant before the alleged illegal search, and that search had nothing to do with getting the warrant. Independent source rule applies. United States v. Royle, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 30267 (1st Cir. Nov. 14, 2023).*
The inventory of defendant’s car after he totaled it fleeing from the police in a wreck was reasonable on the totality. Defendant argued that inventory was improper just from curiosity. United States v. Twiggs, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 204654 (E.D. Mo. Sep. 22, 2023), adopted, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 203601 (E.D. Mo. Nov. 14, 2023).
The brief touching of plaintiff’s genital area during a patdown wasn’t a compensible sexual assault or unreasonable search. Ali-Bey v. Portante, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 204251 (D. Del. Nov. 14, 2023).*
The government showed justification to keep the warrant papers sealed for the time being to protect the investigation. Times Publ’g Co. v. United States, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 203468 (M.D. Fla. Sep. 22, 2023).*
There was reasonable suspicion for the stop of defendant’s vehicle within a mile of the border on a rural road with almost no other cars and the vehicle flashed its lights, apparently as a signal. United States v. Zamora, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 203582 (D. Vt. Nov. 14, 2023).*
Lexology: Outlier or Trend? A Possible Narrowing of the Border Search Exception for Electronic Devices (“As we wrote in a note back in December 2020, the border search exception to the Fourth Amendment is a powerful investigative tool relied on by law enforcement to gather critical physical and digital evidence because it allows for warrantless searches of a person and the person’s belongings. The government’s use of border searches has grown over the years, particularly with respect to electronic devices. In 2022, United States Customs and Border Protection (CBP) conducted approximately 45,425 border searches of electronic devices, a 17% increase from the year prior. This year, the number has remained significant, with over 31,481 searches of travelers’ devices through September 2023.”)
Posted inBorder search|Comments Off on Lexology: Outlier or Trend? A Possible Narrowing of the Border Search Exception for Electronic Devices
This is a Rule 41(g) action for return of property, a superyacht owned by a Russian oligarch seized allegedly in violation of Russian sanctions. The next day, a forfeiture action was filed in the S.D.N.Y., and that provided an adequate remedy at law and the 41(g) case is dismissed. Khudainatov v. United States, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 203081 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2023).
The search warrant for defendant’s saliva was for DNA testing, so defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for not challenging that. Johnson v. Secretary, Florida Dept. Corr., 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 30192 (11th Cir. Nov. 13, 2023).*
Prison cell search: “Therefore, insofar as Plaintiff claims that he was subject to unreasonable cell searches in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights, such a claim is not cognizable under § 1983 and is subject to dismissal.” Harrison v. Campbell, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 203160 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2023).*
An arrest warrant grants limited authority to officers to enter to arrest, but not to conduct a search. State v. Tumblin, 2023-Ohio-4099 (5th Dist. Nov. 14, 2023).*
Defendant lived at a trailer that burned, and a body was found inside. After it was determined that he gave false information about his whereabouts that day, state officers got a search warrant for his cell phone and location information. “[T]he affidavit contained more than wholly conclusional statements. Instead, it provided specific facts and circumstances that allowed the issuing judge to make a probable-cause determination regarding the search of the cellphone. … The totality of the circumstances confirm that the affidavit is not bare bones. … For example, it set forth facts indicating that Putnam had provided false information about his whereabouts shortly after the fire, and it included a Fire Marshal’s evaluation of Putnam’s statements that contradicted his version of events. Additionally, Putnam has not shown that the search warrant was impermissibly overbroad and has therefore failed to show that the warrant was so facially deficient in failing to particularize the place to be searched or the things to be seized that the executing officers could not reasonably presume it to be valid. … Because the executing officer’s reliance on the warrant was objectively reasonable and made in good faith, we uphold the district court’s rejection of Putnam’s challenge to the good-faith exception.” United States v. Putnam, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 30143 (5th Cir. Nov. 13, 2023).*
The citizen informant here provided detailed information, left his name, the police called back, and he came to the suppression hearing. It was reliable enough for the police to act on it. State v. Houston, 2023-Ohio-4101 (5th Dist. Nov. 13, 2023).*
Threats to one of the sons of the warrant executing officers led to state charges for threatening. United States v. Brunson, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 30233 (4th Cir. Nov. 14, 2023).*
Posted inCell phones, Informant hearsay, Warrant execution|Comments Off on CA5: After a fire at def’s trailer, his false statements as to his whereabouts added to PC for SW for cell phone
"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.
