“On this record, opening the car door to test the window tint did not violate the Fourth Amendment since it satisfied the factors in Class — the safety of the officers was served by the governmental intrusion, the intrusion was minimal, and the search stemmed from some probable cause focusing suspicion on the individual affected by the search.” United States v. Holley, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 18554 (11th Cir. Sept. 26, 2017).
A sex assault victim had her cell phone seized for investigation of her complaint by a search authorization, but she had no right to discovery of what was on it and taken from it until the matter was referred for court martial. AG v. Hargis, 2017 CCA LEXIS 630 (Army Ct. Crim. App. Aug. 16, 2017).