The high court on Monday said it will consider allowing prosecutors in Maryland to use a confession from convicted child molester Michael Shatzer that he sexually abused his son.

Shatzer was imprisoned at the Maryland Correctional Institution in Hagerstown for child sexual abuse in 2003 when police started investigating allegations concerning his son. Shatzer requested an attorney and the investigation was soon dropped.

Three years later, the boy was old enough to offer details. According to court documents, when police questioned Shatzer again about the case, he was advised of his rights and signed a form waiving them before confessing.

After Shatzer was charged, he filed a motion to suppress his statements, arguing that he had asked for an attorney in the case before. A lower court said the confession could be used, but the Maryland Court of Appeals agreed with Shatzer and threw out the confession.

The court on Monday unanimously overruled an Arizona appeals court that threw out evidence found during such an encounter.

The case involved a 2002 pat-down search of an Eloy, Ariz., man by an Oro Valley police officer, who found a gun and marijuana.

The justices accepted Arizona's argument that traffic stops are inherently dangerous for police and that pat-downs are permissible when an officer has a reasonable suspicion that the passenger may be armed and dangerous.

The pat-down is allowed if the police "harbor reasonable suspicion that a person subjected to the frisk is armed, and therefore dangerous to the safety of the police and public," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said.

Moussaoui was sentenced to life in prison after pleading guilty to helping plan the 2001 terrorist attacks. His lawyers now claim court-imposed secrecy undermined Moussaoui's ability to present an adequate defense, so the plea should be thrown out and a new trial granted.

A three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Court of Appeals will conduct Monday's hearing in two parts. They'll meet in open court and then close the hearing for matters involving classified information.

They're just working around it — and perhaps inadvertently making the process more secretive.

The projects run the gamut: a Metrolink station that needs building in Placentia, Calif.; a stretch of beach in Sandy Hook, N.J., that could really use some more sand; a water park in Miami.

There are thousands of projects like those that once would have been gotten money upfront but now are left to scramble for dollars at the back end of the process as "ready to go" jobs eligible for the stimulus plan.

The result, as The Associated Press learned in interviews with more than a dozen lawmakers, lobbyists and state and local officials, is a shadowy lobbying effort that may make it difficult to discern how hundreds of billions in federal money will be parceled out.

"'No earmarks' isn't a game-ender," said Peter Buffa, former mayor of Costa Mesa, Calif. "It just means there's a different way of going about making sure the funding is there."

It won't be in legislative language that overtly sets aside money for them. That's the infamous practice known as earmarking, which Obama and Democratic congressional leaders have agreed to nix for the massive stimulus package, expected to come up for a House vote this week.

Instead, the money will be doled out according to arcane formulas spelled out in the bill and in some cases based on the decisions of Obama administration officials, governors and state and local agencies that will choose the projects.

"Somebody's going to earmark it somewhere," said Howard Marlowe, a consultant for a coalition working to preserve beaches.

The ruling says the Israeli government must allow access to reporters whenever the borders are otherwise open. The court said it assumed the crossings would be closed "only in dire circumstances of concrete danger."

The Foreign Press Association, representing reporters based in Israel and the Palestinian areas, had appealed to overturn the ban.

The ruling "reinforces the protection of freedom of the press and the freedom of movement as fundamental rights that could be restricted only under extreme circumstances," said Gilead Sher, attorney for the organization.

Since the offensive ended, Israel has restored access to Gaza for reporters. The ruling would apply to future conflicts, Sher said.

Israel imposed restrictions on entry to Gaza in early November as a cease-fire with Gaza's Hamas rulers began to fray. It tightened the rules after launching a military offensive Dec. 27 and ignored a Supreme Court order six days later to allow limited access to international reporters.

Though the ban was instituted well before heavy fighting began, the government argued the security situation made it unsafe for journalists to visit.

Insurers who paid medical expenses for claimants in the settlement — one of the largest ever in the pharmaceutical industry — have been trying to recoup their expenses from the claimants. The insurers placed liens against any amounts recovered by thousands of former Vioxx users or their survivors, and unsuccessfully tried to make plaintiff lawyers disclose identities of all Vioxx claimants.

Under an agreement approved Thursday by U.S. District Judge Eldon Fallon in New Orleans, the amount the more than 100 private insurers participating in the deal can recover from liens will be reduced by at least half. There's also a sliding scale that limits the total an insurer can recover from each claimant, attorney Christopher Seeger, who negotiated the agreement, told The Associated Press in an interview.

Insurers could get at most 15 percent of a $100,000 settlement, or $15,000, and 10 percent of any settlements worth more than $250,000. It's the first such settlement with insurers in a mass litigation case, Seeger said.

"It's a great deal for the (insurance) carriers. It's a very good deal for the claimants," said Seeger, co-lead counsel for plaintiffs in the consolidated federal Vioxx cases.

Drugmaker Merck & Co., based in Whitehouse Station, N.J., pulled Vioxx off the market in September 2004 amid mounting evidence it greatly increased the risk of heart attack, stroke and death. That triggered tens of thousands of lawsuits from Vioxx users who claimed they were harmed.