State v. Garvin, 166 Wn.2d 242 (2009):

The officer exceeded the scope of an otherwise lawful Terry “stop-and-frisk” (weapons patdown) when he squeezed the contents of the man’s coin pocket despite ascertaining there was no weapon there.

Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S.____ (2009):

In Gant,  the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that an officer cannot search an arrestee’s vehicle simply because the individual was lawfully arrested.  An officer must also have probable cause to believe that evidence of a crime is located within the vehicle.

State v. Grande, 164 Wn.2d 135 (2008):

In Washington State, an officer may not arrest everyone in a vehicle solely based on the odor of marijuana. Individualized suspicion that a particular individual has committed a crime is necessary to justify arrest of that individual.

State v. Tonelli-Prado, 145 Wn.App. 646 (2008):

A vehicle travelling outside one’s lane of travel a single time, without additional observations, does not justify a traffic stop for DUI (and, by extension, any particular crime).

Montejo v. Louisiana, Slip Opinion No. 07–1529. Argued January 13, 2009—Decided May 26, 2009 :

An individuals Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel does not automatically attach at arraignment, unless the accused makes an affirmative invocation of this right.  (Note that this decision is under the U.S Constitution.  Arguably the provisions of the Washington State Constitution are more protective.)