The state argued that because Brendlin was not the driver of the car, he was not the subject of the illegal stop, and so did not have the right to have the evidence suppressed because of the stop's illegality. In the unanimous opinion written by David Souter, the Court found:

Brendlin was seized because no reasonable person in his position when the car was stopped would have believed himself free to "terminate the encounter" between the police and himself. Bostick, supra, at 436. Any reasonable passenger would have understood the officers to be exercising control to the point that no one in the car was free to depart without police permission.

Knight is one of several people who were arrested and charged with drug-related offenses following an investigation of several months that was conducted by the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Portsmouth Police Department and other law enforcement agencies. The investigation focused on the distribution of Ecstacy, cocaine and marijuana in the Portsmouth area.

Knight will be sentenced by U.S. District Court Judge Joseph DiClerico next September. The maximum prison sentence for the offense to which Knight pleaded guilty is 20 years.

The case deals with alleged industry misconduct during the dot-com bubble of the late 1990s.

The outcome of the antitrust case was vital to Wall Street because damages in antitrust cases are tripled, in contrast to penalties under the securities laws.

The question was whether conduct that is the focus of extensive federal regulation under securities laws is immune from liability under federal antitrust laws.

An antitrust action raises "a substantial risk of injury to the securities market," Justice Stephen Breyer wrote. He said there is "a serious conflict" between applying antitrust law to the case and proper enforcement of the securities law.

In dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas said the securities laws contain language that preserves the right to bring the kind of lawsuit investors filed against the Wall Street investment banks.

In 2005, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the conduct alleged in the case is a means of "dangerous manipulation" and that there is no indication Congress contemplated repealing the antitrust laws to protect it.

Investors allege that the investment banks, including Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, agreed to impose illegal tie-ins, or "laddering" arrangements. Favored customers were able to obtain highly sought-after new stock issues in exchange for promises to make subsequent purchases at escalating prices. The investment banks allegedly conspired to levy additional charges for the stock.

As a result of the conspiracy, the investors say, the average price increase on the first day of trading was more than 70 percent in 1999-2000, 8 1/2 times the level from 1981 to 1996.

Private class-action lawsuits, say plaintiffs' attorneys, provide a significant supplement to the limited resources available to the Justice Department to enforce the antitrust laws.

Lawyers for Wall Street investment banks say it is a highly technical matter where the line is drawn between legal and illegal activity in the sale of newly issued stock. It must be left to highly trained securities regulators to decide, rather than to courtroom juries in antitrust lawsuits brought by investors, the industry says.

The Supreme Court concluded that "antitrust courts are likely to make unusually serious mistakes" that hurt defendants. As a result, investment banks must avoid "a wide range of joint conduct that the securities law permits or encourages."

In other action, the court also added one case to its calendar for next term. It will consider whether an investor in a large 401k retirement plan can sue to recover losses to his individual account that are the fault of the plan's manager.

Other Wall Street institutions in the case before the Supreme Court were Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc.; Citigroup Global Markets Inc.; Comerica Inc.; Deutsche Bank Securities Inc.; Fidelity Distributors Corp.; Fidelity Brokerage Services LLC; Fidelity Investments Institutional Services Co. Inc.; Goldman, Sachs & Co.; The Goldman Sachs Group Inc.; Janus Capital Management LLC; Lehman Brothers Inc.; Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc.; Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc.; Robertson Stephens Inc.; Van Wagoner Capital Management Inc.; and Van Wagoner Funds Inc.

Authorities say Samson snapped Ashley Reeves' neck in April of last year and left the teen in the park, where she was found 30 hours later.

Reeves was in court today and says she didn't expect an apology. She says she's glad to have the case over with and wants to go on with her life.

The 18-year-old says she's continuing her rehabilitation and plans to go to college.

South Korean electronics major LG Electronics today said that it had filed a patent lawsuit against Japan's Hitachi in a prolonged tit-for-tat legal battle over plasma display panel (PDP) technology.

In a statement, LG Electronics said, the lawsuit was filed with the US District Court of Texas against Hitachi, its US affiliate and its PDP unit.

LG's suit is a counter suit following similar action by Hitachi. The counter suit accuses the Japanese firms of infringing LG Electronics' seven PDP-related patents and seeks a court injunction against them and monetary compensation.

"Intellectual property is one of LG's essential assets, which we will always uncompromisingly protect," said Jeong Hwan-Lee, executive vice president and head of its intellectual property centre.

"Japanese firms are filing more and more lawsuits as competition in the global display market has increased dramatically. We will proactively deal with the situation based on our patented and patent-applied-for technologies," he added.

LG and Hitachi have had inconclusive talks aimed at settling the patent dispute since 2005. Hitachi filed suit against LG Electronics at the US court for patent infringement on similar technologies in April, claiming they were Hitachi's proprietary technology.

LG Electronics said it holds some 2,300 international PDP-related patents and has applied for another 6,000. It is the world's largest producer of CDMA handsets, air conditioners, optical storage products and DVD players.

A former Democratic political boss in East St. Louis is facing at least 15 more months in federal prison on environmental infractions -- on top of the 21 months he's already serving in a vote-fraud scheme.

Charles Powell Junior has pleaded guilty in US District Court in East St. Louis to a conspiracy charge and a charge of failing to notify authorities before removing asbestos.

Powell admitted he had been hired to renovate the Spivey Building in East St. Louis and that he had hired another man.

According to court documents, both men knew the building contained asbestos but improperly removed and disposed of asbestos-covered pipes and other asbestos-containing material in 2002. Powell once headed East St. Louis' Democratic Party.