Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!bu.edu!cs.bu.edu!ckd From: ckd@cs.bu.edu (Christopher Davis) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk Subject: Re: Forced Entry Message-ID: Date: 12 Feb 91 01:17:51 GMT References: <3326@igloo.scum.com> Sender: news@bu.edu.bu.edu Organization: 1000000011000101, Inc. Lines: 31 In-reply-to: learn@igloo.scum.com's message of 8 Feb 91 15:21:08 GMT Bill> == Bill HMRP Vajk Bill> The following is taken from a handbook entitled "Proving Federal Bill> Crimes" written by James C. Cissell, U.S. Attorney (1980.) Bill> "[...] In Miller v. U.S., 357 U.S. 301, 304 (1958), because Bill> '[t]hey did not expressly demand admission or state their purpose Bill> for their presence,' an arrest was held unlawful when officers Bill> responded 'police' in a low voice to the defendant's inquiry, Bill> 'Who's there', and then broke into his home when the defendant Bill> attempted to close the door. All evidence seized as the result of Bill> unlawful arrest was inadmissible." Bill> I note with mild amusement the mindset of the author of the text. Bill> It is obvious who the defendant in Miller v. U.S. was. It wasn't Bill> Miller. Actually, the *original* defendant was probably Miller. If I recall my Biz Law class properly (it's been a couple years, and it wasn't exactly my major, so your mileage may vary, etc., etc... Mike Godwin can probably affirm/refute this): Appealed ruling have the *appealing* party listed first. Therefore, the original court case was "U.S. v. Miller." When it reached appellate courts, it became "Miller v. U.S." instead. -- [ Christopher Davis - - <..!bu.edu!cs.bu.edu!ckd> ] A message destined for delivery in *your* domain is fair game for anything you may want to do, up to and including translating the entire message, header and all, into Swahili. -- chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg)