chabouk wrote:This is terribly abused, by the way. Many "officer safety" searches wind up searching everything in the passenger compartment, whether or not it could hold a weapon. Hint: officer, that plastic baggie you just felt could not possibly hold a weapon, so the fact that it holds a quarter ounce of marijuana should be suppressed at trial. But, it's not, not in today's environment.
You are behind the times by about two years or so. There was a SCOTUS case based on just this principle, except it was a crack rock instead of marijuana. The frisk was being done and was found legal. During the frisk, the officer felt a crack rock, used the feel as an excuse to go in the pocket and get it, and then charged the suspect for possession.
The court ruled that the plain view doctrine applied, as did Terry. Combined to give the new doctrine the plain feel doctrine. If you are legally in a place you are allowed to be and conducting a legal search, anything you see, feel, or smell (the smell rule is also old), is probable cause for a search and arrest. As I understand the court's thinking, it is along the lines of if I can tell it is a weapon by feel, why can I not tell it is some other illegal object. I fI can tell immediately it is an illegal object, it is legal for me to get and charge for.
So, if I can tell it is a plastic bag of marijuana by feel, from squeezing the outside of the pocket, I can legally go in to the pocket, get it, and charge the suspect.
There is an old saying about bad facts making for bad case law. It is also true that bad lawyers make for bad case law. In this case, my first question was how the officer could tell it was a crack rock, as opposed to a piece of cement or a stale piece of bread. I guess the defense lawyer did not ask this question or did not make the point strongly enough. Anyway, the current state of US law is that I can use the frisk, find drugs, and make the arrest.
