When the affidavit satisfies particularity but the defendant alleges the warrant doesn’t, he has the burden of proving that both were not attached to each other or at the scene of the search for guidance. State v. Goode, 335 Or. App. 108 (Sep. 18, 2024). (Since the defendant carries the burden of proof on warranted searches in general, this seems logical. There are also the questions of: (1) did the search even exceed the limits? (If not, what’s the problem?) (2) Was the affiant involved in the search to make sure the limitations were followed?)
Defendant was apprehended apparently with the use of CSLI by a cross-designated state-federal officer. An AUSA showed at the state suppression hearing and objected to any testimony about federal protocols and this CSLI. The trial court found defendant didn’t meet his burden of proof. On appeal, his appellate arguments differ from the trial court arguments, and it’s affirmed. Walker v. State, 2024 Fla. App. LEXIS 7247 (Fla. 4th DCA Sep. 18, 2024).* One judge concurred that the arguments did differ, but defendant now gets a chance to litigate this on post-conviction. What about the Sixth Amendment right to confrontation and compulsory production which goes unaddressed?
Defendant’s motion to suppress was properly denied without a hearing. The affidavit for the warrant showed probable cause on the lawfully obtained information. People v. Edwards, 2024 NY Slip Op 04468, 2024 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4628 (2d Dept. Sep. 18, 2024).*
Defendant was arrested on suspicion of murder, and his backpack was put in the police car. His backpack was briefly searched and nothing was found. He was released after questioning, but his backpack was subjected to a later inventory which the court finds valid and mostly within protocol. United States v. Sapalasan, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 23687 (9th Cir. Sep. 18, 2024) (2-1), amended 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 26516 (9th Cir. Oct. 21, 2024).
The CI was substantially corroborated and that showed probable cause. State v. Moore, 335 Or. App. 74 (Sep. 18, 2024).*
Defendant’s arrest for gambling in the presence of the officer was supported by probable cause, and the search incident was valid. United States v. Eusebio, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 167804 (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 17, 2024).*
The trial court’s finding the stop was unreasonably extended was unsupported by substantial evidence. It lasted no longer than the time the officer usually took to write a ticket. People v. Valle, 2024 Cal. App. LEXIS 581 (1st Dist. Sep. 18, 2024).*
Swabbing defendant’s hands for DNA while he was handcuffed in an interrogation room was valid as search incident. The DNA was easily destroyed. (Thus exigency too.) Gonzalez v. State, 2024 Ga. LEXIS 203 (Sep. 17, 2024).
An warrant still in the system, even though later determined to be invalid, that results in a valid arrest will not be suppressed under the exclusionary rule. The good faith exception applies. State v. Koffel, 2024-Ohio-4519 (7th Dist. Sep. 10, 2024).
Defendant’s stop for an outstanding warrant wasn’t unreasonably prolonged by the officer trying to find out its validity. The ensuing dog sniff was valid. United States v. Colquhoun, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 167213 (N.D. Iowa Sep. 17, 2024).*
The drug dog’s alert was justification for a search under the automobile exception. United States v. Lewis, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 167296 (E.D. Mo. Sep. 17, 2024).*
Plaintiff’s being on a no-fly list wasn’t reasonable suspicion to detain him on the highway. Meshal v. Commissioner, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 23486 (11th Cir. Sep. 16, 2024).
“[T]he officer did not violate the Fourth Amendment because his warrantless entry into the car was reasonable under the emergency-aid exception to the warrant requirement. The officer could reasonably believe that Roberts’s holding a gun while he was disoriented and apparently intoxicated endangered bystanders, the officer, and Roberts himself. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.” Roberts v. Commonwealth, 2024 Va. App. LEXIS 530 (Sep. 17, 2024).*
2255 petitioner didn’t show how defense counsel violated any duty by not filing a motion to suppress cell phone ping information. United States v. Thomas, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 166889 (E.D. Va. Sep. 16, 2024).*
“The Court finds that when Officers Zinn and Jasso placed the stop sticks and attempted to remove the subject from his vehicle, they had a reasonable, articulable suspicion that the individual behind the wheel of the Dodge Charger was involved in drug transactions. Given the Court’s finding that the officers had a reasonable, articulable suspicion that criminal activity may be afoot and, thus, were justified in conducting an investigative stop, no constitutional violation took place in the initial seizure, that is the attempt by the officers to remove defendant Greer from the vehicle and to hinder defendant Greer’s ability to flee by the placement of the stop sticks.” United States v. Greer, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 166456 (W.D. Mo. Aug. 12, 2024), adopted, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165105 (W.D. Mo. Sep. 13, 2024).
The PO here wasn’t only relying on defendant’s criminal history for a parole search. There was more. United States v. Vano, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 166305 (D. Kan. Sep. 16, 2024).*
There was probable cause for plaintiff’s arrest for bringing a gun on school property, no matter the officer’s subjective intentions. Bracken v. Twp. of Manor, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 23545 (3d Cir. Sep. 17, 2024).*
While cell phones are “tools of the trade” of drug dealing, they usually can be swept up in a search warrant for the premises. While that works in drug cases, there should be caution in other types of cases. United States v. Anderson, No. 1:23-CR-9-HAB, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 166235 (N.D. Ind. Sep. 16, 2024), quoting and relying on United States v. Coffey, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 229231, 2023 WL 8891508, at *11 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 26, 2023).
“[T]he Court agrees with Defendant that the stop was prolonged without reasonable suspicion. However, evidence obtained from Defendant after the discovery of his outstanding arrest warrant is attenuated from that illegality, and therefore should not be suppressed.” United States v. Malone, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164784 (E.D. Tenn. Sep. 13, 2024).*
The fact the DEA officers entering defendant’s house said “DEA Police” and had those words on their jackets and hats supported defendant’s conviction for killing a DEA officer during their entry. United States v. Goddard, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165789 (S.D. Ohio Sep. 15, 2024).*
The search incident of an attached small bag was valid: “Because Hendricks’ clutch was attached to his clothing with a carabiner and was concealed underneath his zipped jacket, it was associated with his person.” United States v. Hendricks, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 23418 (9th Cir. Sep. 16, 2024).*
“Cars on the property” was particular enough for the search warrant for defendant’s property. United States v. Stucky, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 166040 (D. Minn. Sep. 16, 2024).
Plaintiff inmate stated enough to proceed that he was subjected to harassing cell searches in prison for filing a civil rights action against prison. Benton v. Stanzione, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165599 (D.N.J. Sep. 12, 2024).*
Defendant had no standing in the house that was searched. He was essentially a squatter before his arrest and the house was in foreclosure and everybody kicked out. Whatever expectation of privacy he might have had before was gone. United States v. Frazier, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 23258 (4th Cir. Sep. 11, 2024).*
Defendant’s state probation search condition didn’t require reasonable suspicion or other justification. Here it was based on information from an informant. United States v. LeBron, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165782 (D. Alaska Sep. 13, 2024).*
The officers’ kneeling on plaintiff’s back to secure him to the point plaintiff complained he couldn’t breathe violated clearly established law. Spencer v. Pew, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 23463 (9th Cir. Sep. 16, 2024).
The dash cam shows that defendant’s motorcycle’s license plate was missing justifying the stop. United States v. Goodman, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 167374 (E.D. Tenn. Aug. 28, 2024),* adopted, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 166784 (E.D. Tenn. Sep. 17, 2024).*
The officer did not unreasonably extend this stop because the driver had no valid DL, and the officer was checking into whether others could drive. State v. O’Howell, 2024 MT 209 (Sep. 17, 2024).*
Traffic stops can evolve, and this one started with no headlights in to being under the influence. State v. Cabrito, 2024 Ida. App. LEXIS 23 (Sep. 18, 2024).*
Brownstone Institute: A Fourth Amendment for the 21st century by Daniel Nuncio (“‘Twentieth-century Fourth Amendment law was really written for a world before computers,’ stated Reilly Stephens, an attorney with the Liberty Justice Center, in an early September interview. ‘It was literally written before any kind of modern computers – certainly before cell phones and all those things – and there were these assumptions built into the law that were really based around resource constraints.’ ‘[Samuel] Alito talks about this in his concurrence in Jones…’ said Stephens, referencing a 2012 Supreme Court case regarding the placement of a GPS tracking device on a car by law enforcement. ‘[Alito] says it used to be we said the cops can watch anything you do in public because if you’re in public you don’t have any expectation of privacy.’ ‘Any privacy in public Americans thought they had prior to the age of modern computers and an ever-growing list of low-cost connected devices came from resource constraints, Stephens explained.’”)
Posted inComputer and cloud searches|Comments Off on Brownstone Institute: A Fourth Amendment for the 21st century
Posted inRule 41(g) / Return of property, Seizure|Comments Off on Natl. L. Rev.: The Reasonableness of Retaining Personal Property Post-Seizure and the Ascendancy of Text, History, and Tradition in Fourth Amendment Jurisprudence
NYPD used a tracking order based on exigency followed by a written order to locate him. This was not shown to be an unconscionable breakdown in the process for Stone purposes. Also, his phone calls from Rikers were validly recorded. Lamb v. Capra, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165441 (E.D.N.Y. Sep. 13, 2024).*
2254 petitioner sought to get around Stone v. Powell by claiming an “unconscionable breakdown” in the state process, but it wasn’t. “Moreover, petitioner’s claim that the state court should have reopened the suppression hearing is non-cognizable on federal habeas review.” Shepard v. Rich, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164255 (N.D.N.Y. Sep. 12, 2024).*
Defendant’s 2255 claim that counsel was ineffective for not challenging the informant’s tale as just another drug dealer’s story fails. It was more than that and would have lost anyway. Maddox v. United States, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163762 (N.D. W.Va. Aug. 13, 2024),* adopted, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 162904 (N.D. W. Va. Sep. 10, 2024).*
2254 relief denied for two reasons: you can’t challenge a search in 2254 if you had a chance to litigate it and didn’t and then his guilty plea waived it. Kliewer v. Bennett, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163946 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 20, 2024),* adopted, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 162809 (W.D. Wash. Sep. 10, 2024).*
2254 petitioner’s claim Fourth Amendment ineffective assistance claim was defaulted at the state level, and it can’t be pursued on the merits. Cutlip v. Warden, Corr. Reception Ctr., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164412 (S.D. Ohio Sep. 12, 2024).*
Illegally parking [actually standing] in a handicapped spot was an objective basis for defendant’s stop. State v. Diaz, 2024 Fla. App. LEXIS 7143 (Fla. 6th DCA Sep. 13, 2024).*
Defendant’s mother’s consent was validly obtained just as a protective sweep was conducted and he was still in the apartment. United States v. Lopez, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 23294 (2d Cir. Sep. 13, 2024).*
Petitioner’s request to file a successor habeas with a Franks challenge fails because that’s not a ground. In re Mahaffey, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 23164 (6th Cir. Sep. 11, 2024).*
2254 petitioner fully litigated his state search and seizure claim and lost, so it’s barred under Stone. Hammock v. Stancil, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 23284 (10th Cir. Sep. 13, 2024).*
Defendant’s electronic devices were “property under his control” subject to search while on supervised release. United States v. Ramadan, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 23276 (6th Cir. Sep. 11, 2024).
Plaintiff pleads an unreasonable strip search in prison, but the necessary facts are omitted. He needs to amend. Sanders v. Mo. E. Corr. Ctr., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163505 (E.D. Mo. Sep. 10, 2024).*
Probable cause was shown for CP: “The 30-page affidavit allowed for the reasonable inference that evidence related to CSAM would be found in Jennings’s vehicle. [The officer] described in painstaking detail how he determined that an IP address tied to Jennings’s residence was likely accessing the BitTorrent network to download child pornography.” United States v. Jennings, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163602 (W.D. Va. Sep. 11, 2024).*
The officer made a misrepresentation in the affidavit for warrant which could have misled the magistrate, but it wasn’t material to the probable cause finding. Denied. United States v. Wallin, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163692 (C.D. Cal. Sep. 11, 2024).*
The search warrant survives both a finding of probable cause and application of the good faith exception: “Here, the Court agrees with Defendant that the affidavit at issue presents a ‘close call’ as to whether the good-faith exception applies and whether probable cause existed for the magistrate to issue the warrant. But in considering the totality of the circumstances, the Court finds that the affidavit was not ‘bare bones,’ and the good-faith exception thus applies in this case. The affidavit sets forth sufficient specific details about the CI’s presence at 3122 Orange Street to survive the ‘bare bones’ analysis under binding Fifth Circuit precedent. It also provides sufficient detail regarding the CI’s veracity and reliability for the magistrate to have found probable cause. The executing Task Force Officers, therefore, had an objectively reasonable basis to believe in the validity of the warrant.” United States v. Vazquez-Ochoa, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163813 (N.D. Tex. Sep. 10, 2024).* As a former USMJ in my state put it once: If the probable cause question is close and I can’t say there was or wasn’t, how could the police?
“If substantial time had elapsed between the [broadcast] description and apprehension of Mr. Cantey, the defense argument would carry greater force. But here, officers had not only a description, but Mr. Cantey was first observed walking away from the Quick Mart which was consistent with the report from dispatch.” His actions and body language suggested he had a gun with an elastic waistband. crime, “and in fact the officers were specifically detailed there because of the persistent problems encountered in the neighborhood. Finally, as soon as police asked him to ‘come here,’ he took flight.” United States v. Cantey, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163257 (E.D. Pa. Sep. 11, 2024).*
The government showed exigency for what they feared was imminent destruction of drugs for a warrantless entry and protective sweep. Then a warrant was obtained with probable cause. United States v. Banks, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163658 (N.D. Ga. Aug. 5, 2024),* adopted, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163049 (N.D. Ga. Sep. 11, 2024).*
Defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for not making a Franks challenge to car being on the curtilage when the direct appeal held that it wasn’t on the curtilage. May-Shaw v. United States, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163061 (W.D. Mich. Sep. 11, 2024).*
“Plaintiffs’ § 1983 claim is based on allegations that Officer Clark deprived them of their rights under the Fourth Amendment and/or the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by detaining them or failing to stop their detention and interrogation on account of their race. In the absence of a viable conspiracy allegation, Plaintiffs have not alleged that Officer Clark had anything to do with the initial decision to engage with Plaintiffs, and there was nothing alleged about Officer Clark’s actions that suggest he was engaged in a racially-motivated investigation. In the absence of allegations giving rise to a plausible inference that Officer Clark interrupts on-going investigations if the subject is White or that he was an integral part of Officer Madfes’ alleged constitutional violations …, no plausible inference of discriminatory motive on Officer Clark’s part arises from the circumstances alleged.” Khalif v. City of Belvedere, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 23122 (9th Cir. Sep. 11, 2024).*
Arrestee plaintiff pled due process, but it’s a Fourth Amendment claim for not “provid[ing] objectively reasonable post-arrest [medical] care to Plaintiff, a non-pretrial detainee, by ‘imped[ing] the medical staff from completing their task and pressuring them to discharge [Plaintiff],’ which the staff allegedly heeded although Plaintiff was not in the ‘right state of mind or condition to be discharged’ …. (FAC at 21.)” It survives for now. Allen v. Summit, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 161598 n.2 (E.D. Cal. Sep. 6, 2024).
In this excessive force case, defendant Nissen entered the scene after plaintiff was subdued after a high-speed chase and flight from the police. Fact questions remained on what was necessary or reasonable at the time. Ambler v. Nissen, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 23001 (5th Cir. Sep. 10, 2024).*
There’s a fact question for trial, and the denial of qualified immunity can’t be appealed. Lyoya v. Schurr, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 23052 (6th Cir. Sep. 9, 2024).*
Defendant successfully kept out cell phone tracking records for lack of probable cause. “However, during trial, based on defense counsel’s question of whether there was any ‘physical evidence’ connecting Defendant to the case, the trial court ruled that Defendant opened the door, and allowed the admission of the cell site location data.” Admitting it was not an abuse of discretion. State v. Griffin, 2024 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 398 (Sep. 9, 2024).
Defendant’s interview with the police while a search warrant was being executed at this house was not “police dominated.” He wasn’t arrested when it was done. United States v. Hollis, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 162756 (D. Minn. July 26, 2024).*
Probable cause was shown for defendant’s cell phone at his house: “The affidavit in support of the search warrant sufficiently establishes probable cause that evidence of a crime will be found in the apartment to be searched. Phone records and surveillance establish that Defendant’s phone and vehicle were in the vicinity of the murder immediately after the murder occurred. Records and surveillance then establish Williams and Defendant met shortly thereafter and then Williams discarded items taken from Armstead. Several items from the murder were still missing, including the murder weapon. The logical conclusion is that Defendant may still be in possession of those items, and those items could be found at his residence.” United States v. Lindsey, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 162747 (E.D. Mo. Aug. 22, 2024).*
A search warrant is required for a buccal swab after a criminal case is proceeding. State v. Steeprock, 2024 Minn. App. LEXIS 345 (July 29, 2024); State v. Jones, 2024 Minn. App. LEXIS 412 (Aug. 29, 2024).
The search warrant for this cell phone was a month after seizure. Considering the totality of all the factors, the delay was not unreasonable. “‘[1] the length of the delay, [2] the importance of the seized property to the defendant, [3] whether the defendant had a reduced property interest in the seized item, and [4] the strength of the state’s justification for the delay.’” The phone was also shipped from Miami to Vermont for the search. United States v. Khalladi, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 162522 (D. Vt. Sep. 10, 2024).*
There was objective evidence for defendant’s stop crossing the fog line. “Thus, appellant’s unsupported assertion, that police may have had some ulterior motive, does not prevent the stop from being valid for Fourth Amendment purposes.” The ulterior motive alleged was race. State v. Walker, 2024-Ohio-4469 (4th Dist. Sep. 2, 2024).*
When a written document is involved and discussed in a search warrant affidavit, including the document is not constitutionally required. Misstating it might make a Franks claim. United States v. Shetty, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 161863 (W.D. Wash. Sep. 9, 2024).
“Neither party provided the Court with their view of when the earliest Rodriguez moment occurred. Despite this, the Court concludes that under the totality of the circumstances, viewed objectively, the facts available to Trooper Adams were sufficient to establish reasonable suspicion that criminal activity was afoot even before he had finished making his initial traffic-related inquiries of defendant.” United States v. Holyfield, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 161870 (W.D. Pa. Sep. 9, 2024).*
“We agree with the trial court that sufficient independent and lawfully obtained information supported probable cause to issue the search warrant on Siders’s residence.” State v. Siders, 2024 Mo. App. LEXIS 624 (Sep. 10, 2024).*
"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.
