1. Records of the Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities 1973, 1974, Senate Watergate Hearings, National Archives.
2. Statement of Philadelphia Police Commissioner Frank Rizzo to author, telephone conversation, Washington, D.C., 1967.
3. Copies of correspondence in author’s possession between Judge David L. Bazelon and Attorney General Nicholas DeB. Katzenbach, June 1965.
4. Genesis 19:4–11.
5. Genesis 31:11–35. The fact that Laban declined to disturb Rachel can be attributed to het being untouchable as unclean duting her claimed menstrual period or to a sensitivity against searching the person. This immunity from personal search is reflected later in English law in Ward’s Case (1636) Clay 44, cited in David Feldman, The Law Relating to Entry, Search, and Seizure (Oxford: Butterworth, 1986), 4. In that case, a constable searching a house for stolen goods under a warrant attempted to search under the dress of a woman in bed in the house. The court held that this conduct rendered the search invalid.
6. Joshua 2:1–7.
7. Joshua 7:10–26.
8. Another such example is found in Deuteronomy 24:10–11. “When you make a loan to another man, do not enter his house to take a pledge from him. Wait outside, and the man whose creditor you are shall bring the pledge out to you.”
9. Article 21, Code of Hammurabi.
10. Justinian 1, D. 50, 17, 103, cited in Max Rabin, Handbook on Roman Law (St. Paul, Minn.: West Publishing, 1927).
11. In ancient Rome, there were no public prosecutors. Both civil suits and criminal cases were prosecuted by private complainants. A private complainant alleging that X stole his property was required to particularly describe to a judicial officer the property and the place where it was kept. The court would grant the complainant authority to enter X’s house to search for the property and to seize it if it were found there. However, the Roman court imposed a peculiar legal ceremony on the searcher aimed at preventing him from incriminating an innocent person by planting the property in his home. The complainant had to carry an empty platter and be dressed only in an apron. He was accompanied by witnesses and a court bailiff.