United States v. Bari, Docket No. 09-1074-cr (2d Cir. March 22, 2010) (found here)
The Second Circuit's succinct summary of the case and its decision says it all:
Defendant Anthony Bari ("Bari") appeals from the District Court's March 11, 2009 judgment revoking Bari's term of supervised release, imposed after an earlier conviction for bank robbery and, after revocation, sentencing him principally to a term of thirty-six months' imprisonment. During the supervised release revocation hearing, Judge Chin noted that his chambers "did a Google search" to confirm that "there are also lots of different rain hats . . . that one could buy." On appeal, Bari argues that this independent Internet search violated Rule 605 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. We no consider (1) to what extent the Federal Rules of Evidence apply in supervised release revocation hearings; and (2) whether the use of an Internet search to confirm a judge's intuition about a fact not subject to reasonable dispute is grounds for reversal. We conclude that the Federal Rules of Evidence do not apply with their full force in supervised release revocation hearings. We also conclude that the District Court did not commit reversible error in conducting an Internet search to confirm his intuition regarding the matter of common knowledge.
You'll have to read the decision yourself if you want more detail concerning the brand of hat and how it figured into the supervised release violation.