Search incident in a different hotel room from the one defendant was arrested in was invalid. Holloman v. State, 959 So. 2d 403 (2d Dist. 2007).

State appeals court decided appeal on lack of probable cause when neither party briefed it, and this was error. Defense counsel's expressly declining to raise a pretext issue because it had been recently addressed by the state supreme court was a waiver of the issue. State v. Dalzell, 282 Conn. 709 924 A.2d 809 (2007).*

The defendant was arrested outside his house, and he wanted to get his shoes. The officers could follow him back into the house to get his shoes. United States v. Russell, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44125 (D. Vt. June 15, 2007):

The facts as found credible by the Court, however, are clear that Defendant was lawfully arrested outside of his home. It follows, therefore, that the Troopers were permitted to accompany Defendant into his home to retrieve his shoes, even if the idea to enter the home for this purpose originated with the Troopers. See, e.g., United States v. Harness, 453 F.3d 752, 755-56 (6th Cir. 2006). Despite that Defendant now surely wishes he had risked the hazards of a shoeless night instead of leading the Troopers into his home, "a suspect's poor choice does not render unconstitutional an officer's objectively reasonable offer." Id. at 756 (quoting United States v. Garcia, 376 F.3d 648, 651 (7th Cir. 2004)).

One officer was "not a beacon of credibility" but the other was, so the court sides with the police on whether the marijuana in defendant's car could be smelled. United States v. Artis, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44138 (E.D. Va. June 18, 2007):

After painstakingly reviewing the evidence and relevant testimony, the decision is admittedly difficult. In evidence, the Court has the testimony of two United States Park Police Officers' that they smelled marijuana from the car, and that smell got stronger as Defendant stepped outside of the car. This testimony alone is sufficient to find probable cause, granted one important conclusion--that the Court finds this testimony credible. Militating against such a finding of credibility are the following two observations: First and most significant, the marijuana seized from Defendant was sealed inside a zip-lock bag, inside another sealed plastic bag, and inside the Defendant's thick sweatshirt. Notably, the testimony at the hearing is that these bags contained no holes through which odor could more easily escape. Whether the odor of raw marijuana could penetrate two plastic bags and a thick sweatshirt so strongly as to be detected outside of the car gives the Court some hesitation. Unfortunately, neither Government nor Defendant introduced any expert testimony on the subject, which would have undoubtedly aided the Court in its decision. In addition, Officer Gordon's testimony was not necessarily a beacon of credibility, judging from the lack of certainty in his answers, as well as his tone of voice, inflection, and cadence.

Nevertheless, the Court is given significant reassurance by the testimony of Officer Miller, who provided meaningful corroboration to Officer Gordon's testimony. His detailed account of the stop, the interactions of the officers with Ms. Thomas and Mr. Artis, and the circumstances surrounding the arrest sufficiently align with Mr. Gordon's account of the same. Taking these two stories together, although not perfectly parallel (as separate accounts rarely are), convince the Court that the officers' testimony is worthy of credence.

Inmate plaintiff who collapsed in his housing unit and was taken to the hospital unit could have urine forcible drawn. He first came to when given a drug to counteract an OD on opiates, and he was told that they needed a urine or blood sample. He asked for a search warrant and was told that they did not need one because he was an inmate. He passed out again, and they inserted a catheter to retrieve his urine for a drug test. The search was reasonable. Fuller v. Washington County Hosp., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96359 (D. Md. May 23, 2006).*

Plaintiff sued for injunctive relief and not damages, and the district court held that he lacked standing to sue because of the speculative nature of a recurrence. Martinez v. Marino, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44421 (E.D. Pa. June 18, 2007):

Martinez fails to satisfy the pleading requirements to show he may be entitled to injunctive relief. The Supreme Court has suggested that a plaintiff, who alleged he had been choked by police, might be able to seek injunctive relief if he could make "the incredible assertion either (1) that all police officers in Los Angeles always choke any citizen with whom they happen to have an encounter, whether for the purpose of arrest, issuing a citation, or for questioning, or (2) that the City ordered or authorized police officers to act in such manner." City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 105, 103 S. Ct. 1660, 75 L. Ed. 2d 675 (1983). The plaintiff in Lyons failed to meet this heightened standard and Martinez does as well.

Plaintiff's version of what he did to get arrested gave the officers qualified immunity. Benton-El v. Odom, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44270 (M.D. Ga. June 19, 2007).*

"In the case at bar, the information was obtained from an informant whom the agent had known for 3 years and who had previously given information that lead to at least 8 arrests. There is no evidence whatsoever that the informant was unreliable or provided inaccurate information at that time or at any time in the past. Based on the totality of circumstances in this case, there is no evidence of any reason to not rely on the information provided by the well-known, trusted source." United States v. Benson, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44308 (M.D. Ga. June 19, 2007).*

Controlled delivery of a container load of drugs led to probable cause to arrest the recipients and search their vehicles. United States v. Pulido-Tejedo, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44312 (S.D. Ga. June 18, 2007).*

Defendant's argument that the USMJ lacked a substantial basis for finding probable cause on a corroborated informant was rejected. United States v. Crawford, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44417 (E.D. Pa. June 18, 2007):

Taken together, these corroborated details, in addition to numerous other pieces of evidence described in the affidavit, supported the agent's statement that the CS had provided reliable information in the past. The totality of the evidence clearly created a substantial basis for a finding of probable cause and was more than sufficient for the issuance of a warrant to search Rah's Fashion Boutique. Accordingly, we are compelled to reject Defendant's argument that the evidence should be suppressed for lack of probable cause.