CA10: Standing to challenge a wiretap doesn’t translate to standing to challenge a search of somebody else’s car based on the wiretap

Standing to challenge a wiretap doesn’t translate to standing to challenge a search of somebody else’s car based on the wiretap. United States v. Ocegueda, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 4867 (10th Cir. March 25, 2015).

Defendant consented to a patdown before entering the patrol car for a ride home. State v. Swetnam, 2015-Ohio-1003, 2015 Ohio App. LEXIS 1051 (5th Dist. March 13, 2015).*

Defendant was unconscious in the hospital and his blood was drawn for medical purposes. He impliedly consented under statute for the use for BAC testing. State v. Bloomfield, 2015-Ohio-1082, 2015 Ohio App. LEXIS 1052 (4th Dist. March 10, 2015).*

When defendant was stopped, his nervously going to his pockets when told not to justified a frisk. United States v. Thenor, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36009 (D.Me. March 23, 2015).*