The Supreme Court said on Monday it would decide whether police officers can search a vehicle without a warrant once the suspect has been arrested and the scene secured.

The justices agreed to hear an appeal by Arizona officials of a ruling declaring such searches unconstitutional when the scene has been secured and the suspect has been handcuffed and placed in the back of a patrol car under police supervision.

The high court's conservative majority in recent years has generally sided with the police while cutting back on the rights of criminal suspects in car cases.

The U.S. Constitution protects suspects against unreasonable searches and seizures of evidence.

The Arizona case will require the Supreme Court to reexamine its 1981 ruling that risks to officer safety and the preservation of evidence justify a warrantless car search as part of the arrest.

Arizona officials said the state Supreme Court effectively overruled the 1981 ruling in requiring that the police show that inherent dangers actually existed at the time of the search.

The case began in 1999 when the police in Tucson received a tip of drug activity at a house. Two officers went to the house, and when Rodney Gant answered the door he told them the owner was not home, but would return later in the day.

The officers left, but then discovered Gant had a suspended driver's license and an outstanding warrant for driving on a suspended license.

The Supreme Court yesterday protected the makers of medical devices that have passed the most rigorous federal review standards from lawsuits by consumers who allege that the devices caused them harm.

The court ruled 8 to 1 against the estate of a New York man who was seriously injured when a balloon catheter manufactured by Medtronic burst during an angioplasty in 1996. Charles Riegel, who died three years ago, and his wife sued under New York law, alleging that the device's design was faulty and its labeling deficient.

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, said federal law preempts the imposition of liability under state laws for devices that have undergone the Food and Drug Administration's pre-market approval process, the most rigorous of the FDA's testing procedures.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was the lone dissenter. Congress did not intend the preemption clause, Ginsburg wrote, "to effect a radical curtailment of state common-law suits seeking compensation for injuries caused by defectively designed or labeled medical devices."

Courts are filled with lawsuits over preemption, which New York University law professor Catherine M. Sharkey called "the fiercest battle in products liability litigation today."

The Supreme Court this year took several cases that invoke federal preemption. Cases still to be heard include lawsuits in state courts that seek to punish cigarette makers and drug manufacturers.

The court ruled in 1996 that devices approved by the FDA under a less-rigorous process were not protected from state lawsuits. The agency agreed with that.

In 2004 the government reversed its position, and when the case decided yesterday was argued in December, the government said such suits undermine the FDA's authority.

Montana wants the court to rule that Wyoming is using too much water from the Tongue and Powder Rivers, while Montana residents are not getting enough water in some dry years.

Disputes between states often are decided by the Supreme Court.

The disagreement is over the Yellowstone River Compact, an agreement the states and North Dakota signed in 1950 spelling out how to share water.

Montana argues the compact should require Wyoming to limit water use — including from groundwater pumping. Montana argues that coal-bed methane production in Wyoming, which requires pumping huge quantities of groundwater, makes the situation worse.

Wyoming says in response that Montana has failed to show it has been harmed by Wyoming's water use, which is in line with the 1950 agreement.

Congress has recognized that sometimes this power can be abused by managers who retaliate if they don't like something that employee has said or done.

This week, the US Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in two cases examining how, when – or even if – employees can fight back against such abuses of power. On Tuesday, the high court will examine whether a US postal worker can claim retaliation in a lawsuit under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act because she says her supervisor refused to let her return to her old job because he didn't like her personally. Instead, he hired a younger, less experienced worker.

On Wednesday, the justices will hear the case of a former assistant manager at a Cracker Barrel restaurant who alleges he was fired in retaliation for his repeated complaints about racial prejudice by his supervisor.

In both cases the laws cited do not explicitly authorize legal action in response to an act of retaliation. Lawyers for the employees say retaliation is a particularly virulent form of illegal discrimination and thus falls within the scope of the US's civil rights laws even when those laws don't specifically mention retaliation.

Lawyers for companies and supervisors counter that if Congress wanted to authorize lawsuits to punish acts of retaliation, it would have written it into each statute.

Much to the surprise of Nee's lawyers, Grabau started to issue his ruling close to 10 a.m., before closing arguments had been made. "The Commonwealth has proved this case beyond a reasonable doubt ..., " he began.

Several people gasped. Some of Nee's family and friends began sobbing. Nee's father, Thomas, stormed out of the crowded courtroom, red-faced, muttering "This is due process?"

But when Nee's lawyer, Thomas Drechsler, stood up and pointed out that he had not made his closing argument yet, the judge stopped short of announcing his decision and directed the lawyer to begin his closing argument.

Almost two hours later, following Drechsler's impassioned argument on behalf of his client, the judge issued his ruling, convicting Nee on one of three charges. Nee is scheduled to be sentenced Tuesday.

Inside the packed courtroom yesterday, Nee embraced his sobbing mother, telling her: "It's all right. It's all right."

It was an emotional and dramatic conclusion to a four-day bench trial that included testimony from a dozen witnesses. It also marked the end of a disturbing case that sent shockwaves through the town of Marshfield in the fall of 2004, when Nee and his friend, 16-year-old Tobin Kerns, were accused of conspiring to kill students and faculty at Marshfield High.

Authorities learned about the plan in September of that year, when Nee went to police with two classmates and told officers that Kerns was planning a massacre at the school. Nee told police the plan involved taking ammunition and explosive devices into the school, securing the school's exit doors with bicycle locks, and shooting students and staff.

Police arrested Kerns the following day.

Police didn't arrest Nee until a month later, after friends of Kerns implicated Nee as the mastermind of the plot. The two youths were once close friends; Nee even lived at the Kerns's home for a month during the spring of 2004.

Kerns's father, Ben, said that the boys had a falling out and that he believed Nee was trying to frame his son.

A grand jury returned indictments against Nee and Kerns in October 2004, charging both with conspiracy to commit murder, promotion of anarchy, and threatened use of deadly weapons at a school. Kerns and Nee pleaded not guilty to the charges.

Kerns was tried and found guilty of threatening to use deadly weapons and conspiracy to commit murder. In November, he was sentenced to 10 months in jail. He is being held at the Plymouth House of Correction.

In his closing argument yesterday, Drechsler cited a lack of physical evidence in Nee's case and inconsistencies in the prosecution witnesses' testimony.

Nee never planned to take part in the alleged plot, Drechsler said.

"My client was the first one who went to the police," he said. "Do the actions of Joe Nee bespeak of someone who intended to attack the school and kill people?"

Assistant District Attorney Karen O'Sullivan gave the judge the prosecution's point of view.

"The defendant's motive for going to police was to save himself," she said. "The defendant did not have intimate knowledge [of the plan] because he had overheard Mr. Kerns; the plan was as much his as it was Kerns's.

"This was more than a couple of teenagers shooting their mouths off," she said.

Grabau could sentence Nee to as much as 20 years in prison or let him go. Since January 2005, Nee has been free on $20,000 cash bail.

He is currently a student at Bunker Hill Community College.

Lawyers on both sides of the case said they were satisfied with the judge's ruling.

Plymouth District Attorney Timothy J. Cruz said he was pleased Nee was convicted on what he believed to be "the most serious" of the three charges.

"I'm hopeful the town of Marshfield will be able to heal from this," he said. "I'm hopeful that the two young men charged with these crimes will get their acts together and try to be good citizens."

The lawsuit asks a judge to order the Florida Agency for Health Care Administration to inform recipients in the program that they can change Medicaid plans every year. It also asks for undisclosed damages for all of the 200,000 participants.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of three Broward County residents. But it is being expanded to the class action, said Shawn Boehringer, a lawyer with Legal Aid of Broward County. The lawyers haven't yet told Northeast Floridians of their part in the lawsuit. That will come later, he said.

Lawyers for the state have filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, claiming health care providers already tell people they can change their plan every year and that the three original plaintiffs lack legal standing to sue because they aren't participants in the pilot program.

According to the lawsuit, federal law lets recipients change plans at any time if they have "good cause," but notices sent to program participants didn't explain that adequately.

The state also failed to provide the required notice letting people know they can change their Medicaid plan, or drop it, once a year, the suit says.

Reaction to the pilot program has been all over the map in Florida. A Georgetown University study surveyed 186 physicians in Duval and Broward counties last year and found doctors unhappy with the program and refusing to participate.

But Jay Millson, executive vice president of the Duval Medical Society, said the reaction to the pilot program has been largely positive.

The Nassau County Commission asked the state to exempt the county from the program, but the state refused.

Nassau County Commissioner Mike Boyle said his constituents didn't see a need for the program because they thought Medicaid was fine before.

Pat Glynn, executive director of First Coast Advantage, which manages the care of about 15,000 people with Medicaid in Duval County, said the reaction to the pilot program has been positive.

"I'm sure there are things we can do better, but for the most part the people seem happy," he said, adding that many of the concerns came from people who weren't yet familiar with how the program works.