D.Ariz.: Using a co-conspirators’ code word at the door to get defendant to open it was not unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment

Using a co-conspirators’ code word at the door to get defendant to open it was not unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. It was also not consent obtained by deception. United States v. Poom-Medina, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45469 (D. Ariz. March 29, 2013). A protective weapons search in this case was valid because the totality of circumstances supported it. United States v. Scott, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44124 (W.D. Mo. January 23, 2013). But, the court cautioned: Reckless application of the Long protective search rule has the potential to effectively eviscerate the general warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment when a vehicle stop is undertaken by law enforcement officers. Unlike the limitations imposed on a valid "automobile search" and a "search incident to arrest," the Long protective search rule (like the Terry analysis) is constrained only by the reasonable suspicion requirement. A question of fact remains whether it was objectively reasonable to make plaintiffs take the car they were driving in to a border station for a vehicle x-ray. Henry v. County of Niagara, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45939 (W.D. N.Y. March 29, 2013).*