The fact Georgia law requires traffic stops be made by marked vehicles is not a Fourth Amendment issue. Defendant consented to a search of his person, so the plain feel doctrine does not apply. United States v. Foskey, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139541 (S.D. Ga. August 30, 2012).*<\/p>\n
Plaintiff contended that AT&T Mobility accidentally released cell phone records to her city employer, and the employer publicized them. The subpoena sought records on a number, and the time predated plaintiff\u2019s possession of the number. She lacks standing as to the time before she had the number, but the case proceeds as to the latter. The city remains as a defendant, but an individual gets qualified immunity in the \u00a7 1983 claim. As to AT&T, the arbitration clause in the phone contract is binding. McGreal v. At&T Corp., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 140686 (N.D. Ill. September 24, 2012).*<\/p>\n
The officer had reasonable suspicion for a patdown. Questions unrelated to the stop did not measurably increase the length of the stop. United States v. Brome, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139495 (W.D. N.Y. September 5, 2012).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading