PA: Person who matched robber’s description and wouldn’t remove hands from pockets when told was properly frisked

The officer stopped two men because they matched the description of robbers. Defendant’s refusal to remove his hand from his pocket and his “fumbling” in that pocket was sufficient to justify his investigative detention and protective frisk for weapons. Commonwealth v. Coleman, 2011 PA Super 84, 19 A.3d 1111 (2011).*

Defendant was subjected to a private search that ended up in the hands of the government. While the standard of review is not clear, even applying de novo review, the facts are clear that the private searcher was not a government agent at the time the evidence was collected. United States v. Aldridge, 642 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2011).*

The court of appeals improperly limited the state’s argument that an alternative theory, not presented to the trial court, but fully supported by the record, should have been decided. Nevertheless, there was probable cause for the search anyway. State v. Hankerson, 65 So. 3d 502, 36 Fla. L. Weekly S 182 (2011).*

Odor of marijuana justified the search of defendant’s car after arrest. State in the Interest of A.H., 65 So. 3d 679 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2011).*