Handcuffing defendant removed threat he could reach an [unlikely] weapon in a container in pocket

Once defendant was handcuffed, a more intensive search of his pockets to search a tupperware container for a purported weapon was unjustified. The defendant was stopped in the vicinity of a burglar alarm call, but he had nothing in his hands or about him that would indicate that he was involved in the burglary. Questioning led to a handcuffing, and then the intrusive search for a possible weapon. State v. Rudder, 219 Ore. App. 430, 183 P.3d 212 (2008).

Asking for consent while holding defendant’s identification on a stop because he might have been frequenting a drug house was unreasonable. State conceded error. State v. Bales, 219 Ore. App. 487 (2008).*

Defendant was accused of e-mailing death threats to administrators at an Upstate New York college he was fired from for making threats. The FBI sought a search warrant for his computer in Indianapolis. They obtained his address both from the unemployment office as where they were sending unemployment checks and from a public records search on LexisNexis that produced the same address. That was a sufficient basis to conclude that was where he would be found. United States v. Li, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33792 (N.D. N.Y. March 19, 2008).*