Defendant had no standing to contest the search of a house he was under a no contact order to stay away from. Yet, he was found there. Coggins v. State, 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 3587 (Tex. App. – Dallas May 27, 2025).
Pro se plaintiff’s wrongful state eviction claim is barred by Rooker-Feldman, and the defendants aren’t state actors for Fourth Amendment purposes. Anderson v. Stern & Eisenberg, P.C., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100242 (D.N.J. May 27, 2025).*
The search warrant here wasn’t based solely on defendant’s indictment – there was more information. United States v. Bussey, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100152 (S.D. Ga. May 27, 2025).*
Updated: Under state law, there are heightened requirements for cell phone search warrants, and the warrant here authorized searching for and seizure but not search of the phone. A second warrant was issued to search the phone, and it was based on independent sources of information and was valid. State v. Lankford, 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 3588 (Tex. App. – El Paso May 27, 2025).* On rehearing, the first search was for images and was valid and the good faith exception applied. State v. Lankford, 2026 Tex. App. LEXIS 1433 (Tex. App. — El Paso Feb. 12, 2026) (unpublished).*
Uncorroborated anonymous tip: “Because the affidavit relies almost entirely on an uncorroborated anonymous tip and includes no information regarding the tipster’s reliability or the specific details of the anonymous tip, it failed to supply the warrant-issuing judge with a reasonable basis to find probable cause justifying the seizure and testing of Barrera’s urine. Thus, we agree with the motion court’s conclusion that the warrant-issuing judge clearly erred in issuing the warrant.” And no good faith exception: “Accordingly, the false information included in the affidavit provides an additional basis for denying application of the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule. Under these circumstances, we agree with the motion court that the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule is inapplicable to this case and we thus conclude the motion court did not err in suppressing the results of Barrera’s urine test.” State v. Barrera, 2025 Mo. App. LEXIS 350 (May 27, 2025).
The exclusionary rule can apply in some probation searches if probation officers are stalking horses for the police. That didn’t happen here. State v. Sykes, 2025 Conn. App. LEXIS 154 (May 27, 2025).*
The informant was fully corroborated in facts that defendant was a parole violator. State v. Hamilton, 2025 Conn. App. LEXIS 150 (May 1, 2025).*
The officer’s observation of “a driver’s nervousness, an unspecified prior history of drug use, and the officer’s assertion that the driver failed to pull over quickly enough do not alone combine to show particularized suspicion of illegal drug activity.” Nevertheless, she consented to continuing the conversation with the officer and that was enough to be consent. Denial of motion to suppress affirmed. State v. Summers, 2025 MT 109, 2025 Mont. LEXIS 565 (May 27, 2025).
“In light of the prevailing legal standard, Defendant is not entitled to a Franks hearing because he has not made the requisite substantial preliminary showing. See Franks, 438 U.S. at 171. Defendant failed to make the threshold showing for two reasons: (1) he failed to make an offer of proof showing that Detective Saylor misstated or omitted information from the Affidavit knowingly and intentionally or with reckless disregard for the truth; and (2) even if the information that Defendant claims is a misstatement or omission is excised or inserted, the Affidavit still would contain sufficient content to support a finding of probable cause.” United States v. Rodich, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99569 (W.D. Pa. May 27, 2025).*
Officers seeing defendant stick a firearm out the sunroof was probable cause for the vehicle. United States v. Young, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99522 (E.D. Ky. May 27, 2025).*
Police use of a flashlight to look in a car in a parking lot the officer was interested in because the operator was on probation was reasonable. State v. Roberts, 2025 MT 110, 2025 Mont. LEXIS 567 (May 27, 2025). [I thought this was settled 70 years ago.]
During a traffic stop, the officer could run defendant’s name for warrants, and, finding a warrant here, he could arrest defendant and search him. United States v. Patterson, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99920 (D.S.C. May 27, 2025).*
“In sum, although eight armed police officers wearing tactical vests were twenty feet away from Ganaway, they never threatened Ganaway nor displayed their weapons; they did not demand information or compliance; and they did not touch or surround him or otherwise exert their control. They simply asked him one neutral question in a friendly tone, during a brief interaction. Ganaway’s personal reaction to the police’s presence is immaterial because the test of ‘whether ‘a reasonable person would feel free to decline the officers’ requests or otherwise terminate the encounter” … presupposes an innocent person.’ Marujo, 192 P.3d at 1006 (quoting Bostick, 501 U.S. at 436). Thus, we hold, based on the totality of the circumstances, that the initial encounter between the police and Ganaway was not a seizure, meaning it did not trigger Fourth Amendment protections.” People v. Ganaway, 2025 CO 25, 2025 Colo. LEXIS 359 (May 27, 2025).*
The Intercept: U.S. Spy Agencies Are Getting a One-Stop Shop to Buy Your Most Sensitive Personal Data by Sam Biddle (“The ever-growing market for personal data has been a boon for American spy agencies. The U.S. intelligence community is now buying up vast volumes of sensitive information that would have previously required a court order, essentially bypassing the Fourth Amendment. But the surveillance state has encountered a problem: There’s simply too much data on sale from too many corporations and brokers. So the government has a plan for a one-stop shop. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence is working on a system to centralize and ‘streamline’ the use of commercially available information, or CAI, like location data derived from mobile ads, by American spy agencies, according to contract documents reviewed by The Intercept.”)
Posted inDigital privacy, Surveillance technology|Comments Off on The Intercept: U.S. Spy Agencies Are Getting a One-Stop Shop to Buy Your Most Sensitive Personal Data
Defendant was questioned under a prosecutor’s subpoena, and they decided to take his phone to search it. The state’s argument of consent fails because he was told they were taking it and had probable cause but they didn’t. People v. Frisbie, 2025 Mich. App. LEXIS 4130 (May 23, 2025) (unpublished):
For a helpful history of national security searches, see Page v. Comey, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 12547 (D.C. Cir. May 23, 2025).
Pro se doctor plaintiff failed to object to USMJ’s F.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) recommendation, do it’s waived. Pompy v. First Merchs. Bank, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 12703 (6th Cir. May 23, 2025).*
A week after a school shooting 90 minutes from plaintiff’s school, he was investigated and searched because of a remark at school about a gun. The search and school’s actions were reasonable. Halasz v. Cass City Pub. Sch., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99007 (E.D. Mich. May 23, 2025).*
A Delaware trial judge holds that the state constitution, adopted before the Fourth Amendment, provides more protection for motorists than Kansas v. Glover. State v. Coffey, 2025 Del. Super. LEXIS 266 (May 22, 2025). (This will be appealed.)
There’s no reasonable expectation of privacy in the exterior of an apartment complex for Fourth Amendment purposes. There is for apartments, but the complex owner doesn’t have standing. SO Apartments, LLC v. City of San Antonio, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97868 (W.D. Tex. May 22, 2025).*
Defendant wasn’t prejudiced by defense counsel’s failure to file a motion to suppress that (1) wouldn’t have been granted, and (2) was harmless because other witnesses testified to the same things independent of the search. Holmes v. State, 2025 Ga. App. LEXIS 208 (May 23, 2025).*
Defendant’s motion to suppress was never ruled on by the trial court, so it can’t be argued on appeal. State v. Clark, 2025 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 61 (May 23, 2025).*
The police here presented incomplete probable cause here that a phone call could have corrected. Since the officer knew it (and that probable cause might be lacking) and said he was charging defendant anyway, the motion to suppress the automobile search is granted. United States v. Pew, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98319 (M.D. Fla. May 23, 2025).
Defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for not arguing invalidity of a search waiver where a later case in another court held a similar search was invalid. (United States v. Williams, 409 F. Supp. 3d 1340, 1347-48 (M.D. Ga. 2019)). “Regardless of the persuasiveness of the district court’s opinion in Williams, that opinion cannot establish that Mr. King’s counsel performed deficiently. First, this court had already denied Mr. King’s suppression motion by the time the Williams court issued its decision. (See doc. 28) (issued on January 8, 2019); Williams, 409 F. Supp. 3d at 1340 (issued on August 19, 2019). Second, the question Mr. King asserts counsel should have raised is unsettled.” King v. United States, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98704 (N.D. Ala. May 23, 2025).*
Plaintiff’s first complaint against his search was dismissed as Heck barred. He refiled it as a due process claim, and it was properly labeled as a malicious filing under § 1915. Hall v. Nisbet, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 12578 (3d Cir. May 23, 2025).*
The fact the omissions from the warrant application might make it appear less incriminating doesn’t help here; the warrant was based on jail calls and pointed to evidence in defendant’s safe. That’s not a Franks violation. United States v. Wright, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98372 (D. Neb. May 23, 2025).
Where Georgia officers seized money and transferred it to Alabama officers for forfeiture, the Alabama court had no jurisdiction without an Alabama court issuing some kind of order. Routier v. State, 2025 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 65 (May 23, 2025).*
Knock-and-talk led to consent entry then probable cause: “Herein, the officers received repeated tips, months apart, concerning the possible drug transactions at the defendant’s residence and decided to conduct a knock and talk investigation. Buckhalter was alone in the residence when the police arrived, had been staying there for days, had a suitcase and clothes there, was doing her laundry there, and had a gun on the dresser in the master bedroom. Considering the foregoing, we find the officers reasonably concluded that Buckhalter had shared authority to consent to their entry of the home. They were lawfully in the home once the consent was given. Upon entering the home, they saw suspected drug paraphernalia on the counter. At that point, the officers had probable cause to conduct the protective sweep.” State v. Augustine, 2025 La. App. LEXIS 982 (La. App. 1 Cir May 23, 2025).*
Posted inForfeiture, Franks doctrine, Knock and talk|Comments Off on D.Neb.: The fact of omissions from the affidavit for warrant that might have made it less incriminating doesn’t help any here; there was PC and evidence to be found
Officers didn’t enter the curtilage to look at defendant’s motorcycle. It was parked on dirt strip driveway closer to the street than the house, all confirmed by bodycam. Groh v. State, 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 3572 (Tex. App. – El Paso May 23, 2025).
“Donovan does not identify on appeal which statements in the affidavits were ‘deliberately false or made with reckless disregard for the truth.’ Instead, he cites to the memorandum in support of the motion to suppress submitted to the district court and argues that the Government did not dispute the alleged misrepresentations but rather ‘attempted to justify the affiant’s action.’ Therefore, we have analyzed the filings submitted to the district court.” And he loses for lack of a showing. United States v. Bourrage, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 12360 (5th Cir. May 21, 2025).*
Defendant was lost in a construction area because his vehicle GPS wasn’t accurate, and he stopped at a police car for directions. One thing led to another, and he was arrested for DUI. A search of the car revealed a firearm he was prohibited from possessing. The search was valid. United States v. Reed, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96712 (S.D. Ind. May 21, 2025).*
Tracking defendant’s vehicle with automatic license plate readers can’t be equated with GPS placement, so Jones distinguished. There’s no reasonable expectation of privacy in an LPN. There is also interesting Franks and staleness issues. Defendant got a Franks hearing but didn’t prevail because probable cause was shown in any event. And, because the car was used in a shooting, it was reasonable to think that spent shell cases would be inside. United States v. Griffin, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97641 (S.D. Ind. May 22, 2025).
“Donovan does not identify on appeal which statements in the affidavits were ‘deliberately false or made with reckless disregard for the truth.’ Instead, he cites to the memorandum in support of the motion to suppress submitted to the district court and argues that the Government did not dispute the alleged misrepresentations but rather ‘attempted to justify the affiant’s action.’ Therefore, we have analyzed the filings submitted to the district court.” And he loses for lack of a showing. United States v. Bourrage, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 12360 (5th Cir. May 21, 2025).*
Defendant was lost in a construction area because his vehicle GPS wasn’t accurate, and he stopped at a police car for directions. One thing led to another, and he was arrested for DUI. A search of the car revealed a firearm he was prohibited from possessing. The search was valid. United States v. Reed, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96712 (S.D. Ind. May 21, 2025).*
GPS data in a child porn image on defendant’s phone was probable cause to search his house. Bibbs v. State, 2025 Ga. App. LEXIS 186 (May 13, 2025).
Briefly crossing the centerline is not an offense unless it appears unsafe. The trial court found it wasn’t, and that’s affirmed. The trial court’s findings of fact get almost total deference. State v. Medford, 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 3460 (Tex. App. – Tyler May 21, 2025).*
The cell phone search warrant here authorized police to obtain the password, too, and defendant gave it up. Waid v. State, 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 3456 (Tex. App. – Dallas May 21, 2025).*
Since “there was simply no basis on which attorney Tilton could plausibly challenge the search warrant via a motion to suppress,” he wasn’t ineffective for not. Thomas-Mathews v. United States, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96764 (W.D. Mich. May 21, 2025).*
After defendant’s motion to suppress was granted, he moved to reopen his detention hearing. It’s denied. The government superseded the indictment, and he’s still found to be a danger to the community. “The Court may thus properly consider suppressed evidence in the pretrial detention assessment. Therefore, all of the evidence previously considered at the May 19, 2023, detention hearing continues to inform the detention issue even though some of that evidence may fall within Judge Long’s suppression decision.” United States v. Wilson, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95575 (E.D. La. May 20, 2025).
“The court agrees that the inventory search was constitutional, and that even if there were constitutional deficiencies, the gun would have been inevitably discovered.” United States v. Nelson, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95987 (E.D. Mich. May 20, 2025).*
“A ‘general proposition,’ such as ‘that an unreasonable search or seizure violates the Fourth Amendment is of little help in determining whether the violative nature of particular conduct is clearly established.’ Rather, ‘we must frame the constitutional question with specificity and granularity.’ In other words, the ‘dispositive question is “whether the violative nature of particular conduct is clearly established.”’ We also note our ‘commandment’ that clearly established law comes from ‘holdings, not dicta,’ because public officials ‘are charged with knowing the results of our cases … [but] are not charged with memorizing every jot and tittle we write to explain them.’ [¶] Respectfully, the district court erred by defining Wetherbe’s rights at too high of a level of generality.” Wetherbe v. Tex. Tech. Univ. Sys., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 12248 (5th Cir. May 20, 2025).*
“This is not to say that Officer Rukamp was lying. The issue before the court is not whether the defense has proved that the officer lied; the issue is whether the government has met its burden of proof. In granting Bradshaw’s motion, the court concludes only that Officer Rukamp’s testimony lacks the kind of corroboration the court finds is needed under the circumstances of this case to carry the government’s burden of proof.” United States v. Bradshaw, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95682 (E.D. Wis. May 20, 2025).*
Defendant can’t argue that unannounced searches of his computers while on supervised release violate the Fourth Amendment. As a condition of release, however, it was justified because he had “decades” worth of child pornography on his computers. United States v. Mayhew, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 11886 (2d Cir. May 16, 2025).*
Officers prepared a warrant application and then developed new facts. There was also a protective sweep with a plain view. They amended the prior application, and they omitted anything dealing with the plain view. Probable cause was shown. United States v. Bimbow, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 11893 (2d Cir. May 16, 2025).*
There was probable cause to arrest plaintiff for public intoxication. Burke v. City of Okla. City, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 12282 (10th Cir. May 20, 2025).*
Lifetime electronic monitoring of this sex offender when on parole doesn’t violate the Fourth Amendment. People v. Van Mai, 2025 Mich. App. LEXIS 3912 (May 20, 2025).
DUI checkpoint: “The only issue Defendant raises is whether the check point was unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment because Sergeant Norris allegedly failed to obtain the requisite approval for establishing it. Because Sergeant Norris complied with the permission policies at issue, Defendant has failed to put forth arguments sufficient to merit a constitutionally mandated reversal.” Columbus Cty. v. Hawkins, 2025 N.C. App. LEXIS 286 (May 21, 2025).*
No record, no appeal: “Here, defendant has failed to present this Court with a record to verify the factual basis of his argument that Detective Callow lied in his search warrant affidavit, gave perjured testimony, or performed an illegal search of defendant’s SIM card.” People v. Bartolomucci, 2025 Mich. App. LEXIS 3908 (May 20, 2025).*
The CI was brought before the issuing magistrate to attest to the probable cause, which there was for the warrant. People v. Martinez, 2025 NYLJ LEXIS 1663 (Queens Co. May 15, 2025).*
“Even if the search-warrant affidavit at issue lacked probable cause, the district court did not err in denying Noble’s motion to suppress because the good-faith exception applies. The search-warrant affidavit is not bare bones.” The smell of marijuana coming from defendant’s house was enough. United States v. Noble, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 11998 (6th Cir. May 15, 2025).*
The informant hearsay here was corroborated. “Defendant’s contention that the warrant lacked probable cause because it rests on unreliable hearsay which tainted the entire affidavit is shortsighted. The affidavit does indicate that numerous cooperating individuals had advised that defendant was transporting large amounts of narcotics from Columbus, Ohio, and selling them out of the Cambridge Square apartment complex. And it does not provide further detail about these individuals or their credibility, reliability or accuracy. But it does not follow that the information conveyed by these individuals was not corroborated or independently found to be credible. [¶] What defendant conveniently overlooks is that Officer Cuccaro’s months-long investigation of defendant had independently confirmed and corroborated the general information conveyed by the ‘numerous cooperating individuals.’” United States v. Moore, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93614 (W.D. Pa. May 16, 2025).*
Shooting an unarmed protestor at point blank range was shown to be excessive here. Hart v. City of Grand Rapids, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 11780 (6th Cir. May 15, 2025) (2-1).*
WaPo: Police secretly monitored New Orleans with facial recognition cameras by Douglas MacMillan and Aaron Schaffer (“For two years, New Orleans police secretly relied on facial recognition technology to scan city streets in search of suspects, a surveillance method without a known precedent in any major American city that may violate municipal guardrails around use of the technology, an investigation by The Washington Post has found. Police increasingly use facial recognition software to identify unknown culprits from still images, usually taken by surveillance cameras at or near the scene of a crime. New Orleans police took this technology a step further, utilizing a private network of more than 200 facial recognition cameras to watch over the streets, constantly monitoring for wanted suspects and automatically pinging officers’ mobile phones through an app to convey the names and current locations of possible matches.”)
Defendant’s motorcycle was parked near his front door, but he fails to show that it was within the curtilage of his house. He carries that burden. Bessinger v. Commonwealth, 2025 Ky. App. LEXIS 42 (May 16, 2025):
"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.
