How does this make you feel, that most people are wrong about this?

Question

On my previous question, people mentioned the plain feel doctrine when applied to a Terry Stop. Some of the answers had condesending undertones, I am here to inform those people that they are ignorant as to the understanding of what the "plain feel" doctrine encompasses.

Here is a scenario to prove everyone was wrong -

Imagine that while on routine patrol in a marked squad car, you and your partner observe a 23-year-old man walking out of an apartment building that you consider to be a notorious "crack house." Your perception stems from the number of complaints of drug sales in the building's hallways, which you previously investigated, as well as your prior execution of several search warrants on the premises.

The man begins walking toward you, but upon spotting the patrol car and making eye contact, he abruptly halts and begins to walk in the opposite direction. Suddenly, he turns and enters an alley on the other side of the apartment building. Now, your suspicions are aroused.

You follow the man into the alley, where he complies with your command to stop. Then, based on a reasonable fear that he could be armed, you conduct a patdown search for weapons. Although no weapon is found, you do feel a small lump in the front pocket of his nylon jacket. When you examine it with your fingers, the lump slides and feels like crack cocaine in cellophane. You then reach into the man's pocket and retrieve a small plastic bag that contains 1/5 gram of crack cocaine. Is the seizure of the cocaine lawful under the so-called "plain feel" doctrine?

Based on these very facts, the Supreme Court recently answered "no" to that question in Minnesota v. Dickerson.(1) Yet, while the Court invalidated the search that occurred in that particular case, all nine Justices nevertheless agreed that under certain conditions, police may lawfully seize nonthreatening contraband detected through the sense of touch during a protective patdown search.


That being said, in most scenario's, during a normal Terry Stop, if drugs are found in a pocket, they are not admissible evidence given the scope of the search is only limited to weapons.

I hope you all learned something.

Precedent - Minnesota v. Dickerson

Answer 1

Well, your example is half right. In that case the officer apparently did not know what he had until he pulled it out of Dickerson's pocket - that makes it an illegal search. However, if the officer had been able to truthfully say that he knew immediately what the object was, based on his training, experience, proximity to the crack house, and knowledge of the crack house, the search might have been allowed by the court.



Laws regarding searches are the most fluid ones we have. What was legal and proper one day, gets outlawed by the courts the next day. What was a questionable procedure last week is suddenly a justifiable reason the next week. It often comes down to whether the judge, who decides the matter, is a big privacy proponent or a law and order supporter.

Answer 2

In Minnesota v. Dickerson, the drugs were not identifiable until the officer reached into the pocket to remove it. If it is identifiable during the patdown, then, according to Minnesota v. Dickerson, the warrantless seizure would be legal in the "plain-view" context:



"If a police officer lawfully pats down a suspect's outer clothing and feels an object whose contour or mass makes its identity immediately apparent, there has been no invasion of the suspect's privacy beyond that already authorized by the officer's search for weapons; if the object is contraband, its warrantless seizure would be justified by the same practical considerations that inhere in the plain-view context."



It's all in the detail. Some cases the arrest would be valid, in others it would not.





*EDIT* - @Meh - The case did go to the US Supreme Court, which unanimously agreed with the MN state Supreme Court that it was an illegal search and the cocaine was inadmissible evidence.

Answer 3

As said in the previous questions, you cannot manipulate it if you do not know what it is. Since the lump in this scenario could have been anything, they should not have felt it more to find out what it was. However, if they are feeling and feel what is obviously a pipe or something that is most likely drugs, they can search because they now have probable cause. This case you cite does not say that they cannot search when they find illegal contraband, it just says that you can only manipulate a pocket when you feel something that could be a weapon, not whenever you find something.



As far as admissability, they are only not admissable if when patting a person down, there is no way they could have known what it was without moving the pocket around. So if they feel a pipe or a small bag without manipulating the pocket, they can manipulate it to be sure and then search because it moves from a terry search to a probable cause search.

Answer 4

Like I tell all my new officers: Piss poor report writing = piss poor case law.



I am sure that the officer knew exactly what he/she found during the pat down. A failure to properly document his/her conduct lead to this case. I had a case argued in front of my State Supreme Court that set case law. I did not even know about it going before the State Supreme Court until I google searched my own name and saw the case law. I only testified in my own court, not at any of the appeals process. Everything they based their decision on was what was in my original report. It was a lesson learned. Now all my narratives are about 5 pages long!

Answer 5

The problem is when a Terry Stop ends and a plain feel search begins. Every time the Supreme Court gives police officer a useful tool (i.e. Terry) they abuse it and the court has to reverse itself. Plain feel will be stopped very soon - because cops will be patting down a woman in a string bikini for weapons, just to find her drugs. Same old story!

Answer 6

You are still leaving out the fact that in one of your previous questions you stated that he smelled the odor of marijuana. This in and of itself gives the officer probable cause to arrest you and therefore search you pursuant to arrest. This was not a simple Terry stop.

Answer 7

You are very correct, unfortunately it's the civilians measly word against a cop. Who will a judge believe, Johnny Drugman or SGT. Johnny Piggy?