Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!midway!gargoyle!igloo!learn From: learn@igloo.scum.com (Bill HMRP Vajk) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk Subject: Re: Forced Entry Message-ID: <3331@igloo.scum.com> Date: 14 Feb 91 01:35:35 GMT References: <3326@igloo.scum.com> Organization: Igloo, Public access Unix, Northbrook IL Lines: 25 In article Christopher Davis writes: ~ 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. The defendant in the case was the US, period. The case being quoted is Miller v. U.S. The history of how the case got there has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the author continued to think of Miller as the defendant even when Miller bacame the plaintiff. Bill Vajk | How we think affects how we act.