Defendant was reported to the police as “suspicious and disoriented.” When they found him, he was intoxicated. There was nothing to suggest he was dangerous. “[T]he information the Officers possessed about Defendant did not indicate that he was armed and dangerous.” The frisk could not be justified by that. The officers felt, however, that defendant was a danger to himself or others, and the court finds probable cause for a frisk before taking him“into protective custody under Colorado's Emergency Commitment statute.” United States v. Gilmore, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71178 (D. Colo. May 14, 2013).*

Co-defendant passenger had standing to challenge the stop (which was valid) but not the search of the vehicle owned and driven by another. United States v. Desjardin, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70770 (D. Nev. May 17, 2013).*

ABAJ.com: Feds secretly got warrant for Fox reporter’s email, claimed news-gathering was likely a crime by Martha Neil:

News that federal authorities had apparently looked at the personal email of the chief Washington correspondent for Fox News under a search warrant secretly obtained in a criminal investigation of his 2009 news-gathering activities elicited outrage Monday from media organizations and others,

NYTimes: Judge Criticizes ‘High Error Rate’ of New York Police Stops by Joseph Goldstein:

After listening to two months of testimony on the New York Police Department’s stop-and-frisk practices, Judge Shira A. Scheindlin left little doubt about her views of their effectiveness in helping detect criminal behavior.

“A lot of people are being frisked or searched on suspicion of having a gun and nobody has a gun,” Judge Scheindlin, of Federal District Court in Manhattan, said on Monday during closing arguments in the trial. “So the point is: the suspicion turns out to be wrong in most of the cases.”

Michigan Lawyers Weekly: Class action certified for tax debtors’ Fourth Amendment claims against state treasury by Ed Wesoloski

A restaurateur who was trying to work out his tax problems with the Michigan Department of Treasury is the lead plaintiff in a class action suit that alleges treasury agents routinely searched premises and seized assets without judicially authorized warrants.

. . .

Miri alleges that from Dec. 1, 2008 to Dec. 1, 2011, the treasury department violated the Fourth Amendment in 162 instances where agents made nonconsensual searches and seizures under the authority of warrants issued and executed without judicial authority.

NYTimes Editorial: Eavesdropping on Internet Communications:

The Federal Bureau of Investigation has a new plan to intercept Internet messages, calls and video chats. Instead of requiring companies like Skype and Google to build surveillance capabilities into their services as it suggested in 2010, the F.B.I. now proposes fining companies that fail to comply with court-ordered wiretaps.

The juvenile left the school grounds and went to his truck across the street and came back to the school. He was searched when he came back on the school grounds, and nothing was found. School officials then searched his truck across the street. That search exceeded their authority, and drug paraphernalia was found. The student’s 19 day suspension was reversed (already served) and ordered purged from his record. J.P. v. Mlllard Pub. Schs, 285 Neb. 890, 2013 Neb. LEXIS 78 (May 17, 2013).

Defendant’s stop was not prolonged to get consent, particularly because defendant consented within about four minutes of the stop. Powell v. State, 2013 Ark. App. 322, 2013 Ark. App. LEXIS 335 (May 15, 2013).*

The district court disbelieved that defendant effectively withdrew his consent to search his computer for child pornography. The evidence supports that. United States v. Schaefer, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 9885 (2d Cir. May 17, 2013).*

Defendant was stopped in his blue Buick because dispatch reported the license plate belonged to a red pickup truck. That was legal cause for the stop. During the stop, the officer always had defendants’ DL in hand, and defendant consented to a search of the car. After the search, the officer learned that dispatch was mistaken, and the vehicle was lawfully registered. The consent search was still valid because the stop was valid, and the stop was not too long. State v. Elkins, 2013 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 406 (May 16, 2013).

Defendant’s non-conditional plea was a waiver of the denial of the motion to suppress. United States v. Jackson, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 9831 (4th Cir. May 16, 2013).*

There was reasonable suspicion to stop the defendant after a detailed call from a CI. When following him, he pulled over like he was trying to lose his tail. He took off again and went to an address known for drug dealing. State v. Harrison, 2013 Iowa App. LEXIS 524 (May 15, 2013).*

Defendant was stopped in front of his house, and he was roaming around freely until the officers asked him for a frisk, which he objectively agreed to. State v. Pierce, 2013 Iowa App. LEXIS 541 (May 15, 2013).*