Was this Terry Frisk lawful?

On an evening in November, two Minneapolis police officers were patrolling an area on the city's north side in a marked squad car. At about 8:15 p.m., one of the officers observed respondent leaving a 12-unit apartment building on Morgan Avenue North. The officer, having previously responded to complaints of drug sales in the building's hallways, and having executed several search warrants on the premises, considered the building to be a notorious "crack house." According to testimony credited by the trial court, respondent began walking toward the police but, [508 U.S. 366, 369]   upon spotting the squad car and making eye contact with one of the officers, abruptly halted and began walking in the opposite direction. His suspicion aroused, this officer watched as respondent turned and entered an alley on the other side of the apartment building. Based upon respondent's seemingly evasive actions and the fact that he had just left a building known for cocaine traffic, the officers decided to stop respondent and investigate further.

The officers pulled their squad car into the alley and ordered respondent to stop and submit to a patdown search. The search revealed no weapons, but the officer conducting the search did take an interest in a small lump in respondent's nylon jacket. The officer later testified:

"[A]s I pat-searched the front of his body, I felt a lump, a small lump, in the front pocket. I examined it with my fingers and it slid and it felt to be a lump of crack cocaine in cellophane."

The officer then reached into respondent's pocket and retrieved a small plastic bag containing one fifth of one gram of crack cocaine. Respondent was arrested and charged in Hennepin County District Court with possession of a controlled substance.

Before trial, respondent moved to suppress the cocaine. The trial court first concluded that the officers were justified under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), in stopping respondent to investigate whether he might be engaged in criminal activity. The court further found that the officers were justified in frisking respondent to ensure that he was not carrying a weapon. Finally, analogizing to the "plain view" doctrine, under which officers may make a warrantless seizure of contraband found in plain view during a lawful search for other items, the trial court ruled that the officers' seizure of the cocaine did not violate the Fourth Amendment.

Sounds Lawful to me. It was very well articulated by arresting officer.

Nope not with the manipulation!

I think that the search was lawful however the statement i the report might cause a little problem. "[A]s I pat-searched the front of his body, I felt a lump, a small lump, in the front pocket. I examined it with my fingers and it slid and it felt to be a lump of crack cocaine in cellophane." we all know that he was an experienced officer an that undoubtedly he had knowledge of the area and would know that the "lump" that he felt was a "rock" of crack. However he did not articulate that fact. (unless there is more that was not posted)

I think that something written like this might be ok.

"[A]s I pat-searched the front of his body, I felt a lump, a small lump, that i recognized from my training and experience in drug and narcotic investigation, to be what is commonly reffered to as a "rock" of crack cocaine in the front pocket. I examined the rock with my fingers and it slid and it felt to be a lump of crack cocaine in cellophane."


Edited by gcrfirewolf - April 24 2008 at 12:08pm

OOOrah Master Chief! Bravo Zulu.