While the issue is pending in SCOTUS, the taking of DNA in a pending alleged sex offense is a reasonable search. The court declines to stay the order pending the case in SCOTUS. United States v. Robinette, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7903 (E.D. Cal. January 18, 2013):

Obtaining and analyzing DNA is a search or seizure which implicates Fourth Amendment concerns. But such procedure is reasonable in these certain circumstances, given the minimal intrusion which it entails and the legitimate government interest in the identification of the individual and the investigation and prosecution of unsolved and future criminal acts by the use of DNA. The manner in which the DNA is used is not significantly different from the use of fingerprints. The court also considers the nature of the crimes charged against Robinette for which probable cause has issued. The court finds that while obtaining and analyzing the DNA or saliva of Robinette based on probable cause for committing sex offense is a search and seizure implicating Fourth Amendment concerns, it is a reasonable search and seizure.

In this identity theft case, inventory of defendant’s wallet was reasonable and it would have occurred in any event on booking. United States v. Bell, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7766 (S.D. Fla. January 18, 2013):

The Court finds Detective St. Fort's inventory search of Bell's property was conducted in accordance with his department's established booking procedures requiring an arrestee's personal property to be "seized" and "documented." The removal and documentation of the items found in the defendant's wallet is similarly consistent with the descriptors solicited on the arresting agency's personal property form. Additionally, the Court finds that this policy to be consistent with the recognized administrative purposes of the inventory search. Sammons v. Taylor, 967 F.2d 1533, 1543 (11th Cir. 1992). The Miramar Police Department's policy is clearly designed to identify each item taken from an arrestee.

In practice, Detective St. Fort's scan of Bell's property was just thorough enough to allow for a specific description of each item. This is especially important for the kinds of property contained in a person's wallet: valuable items such as money, debit and credit cards. St. Fort's scan also enabled him to detect several obvious irregularities on two of the debit cards in the defendant's possession. To the extent this review of the items contained in the defendant's wallet constituted a search, it was well within the scope of the inventory exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement. ...

Defendant refused to tell the officer his cell phone number, and the officer ordered him to put it on the dash. This was not by consent, and the cell phone is suppressed. United States v. Claude, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7350 (E.D. Pa. January 16, 2013)*:

In this case, defendant did not give consent to search for his cellphone. As defendant sat in his vehicle, Officer Walter stood over him and questioned him about his cellphone. Officer Walter did not advise defendant of his constitutional rights before or during this questioning. Officer Walter initially asked defendant for his cellphone number, and defendant declined to provide the number. This refusal demonstrates that defendant had no desire to voluntarily give Officer Walter information about his cellphone. In response to this refusal, Officer Walter ordered defendant to "[p]lace [his] cellphone on the dashboard," and he complied. (Tr. at 45-46.) This mere "acquiescence to a claim of lawful authority" does not constitute voluntary consent. See Bumper, 391 U.S. at 548-49.

...

Without consent, the action of Officer Walter was the equivalent of an unlawful search. The cellphone in this case was not in plain view, and defendant did not agree to produce it until ordered to do so. Thus, Officer Walter's directive to defendant to "[p]lace [his] cellphone on the dashboard" amounted to an unlawful search in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Defendant was subjected to a state probation search in 2005 for child pornography on a computer and it was suppressed because of a lack of a search warrant for the computers. The same happened here again. He was subject to probation searches of his person, vehicle, and residence, but he was never told that his computers were subject to probation searches. While there was reasonable suspicion for a probation search, the computer required a warrant, and the motion to suppress is granted. While the court is loath to suppress because the suppression should be the exception rather than the rule, it has to here because they violated his Fourth Amendment rights again. United States v. Swearingen, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7473 (D. Mont. January 8, 2013). [Note: At least in my federal district, the J&C in federal sex offenses includes a provision for supervised release that the computer is, in fact, subject to warrantless search by the USPO.]

Manner and place of travel can be suspicious very near the border, for instance, on a road only locals should be on. “Although there were no objective measures offered to evaluate these assertions, this factor does deserve significant weight given Sasabe's proximity to the border and the amount and frequency of alien and drug smuggling activity in the area.” United States v. Rodriguez, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 184699 (D. Ariz. October 18, 2012).

Where two of three bulbs in a taillight were working, it was “in good working order” and the stop was unjustified. Post-conviction relief granted. State v. Brown, 2013 WI App 17, 346 Wis. 2d 98, 827 N.W.2d 903 (2013).*

Withdrawing the motion to suppress makes it moot. United States v. Forrest, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 184615 (D. Nev. October 31, 2012).*