☢ test - Í

hard round object in defendant’s pocket, “smaller than a piece of candy,” was a weapon). Shoemaker v. State, 292 Ga.App. 97, 663 S.E.2d 423 (June 19, 2008). Officer had authority to take case out of defendant’s pocket and open it when she had reasonable suspicion that it might contain a weapon. “When [officer] patted Shoemaker down, she felt something hard, ‘like a case,’ in one of his pockets. Thinking it might be a weapon, Officer Kaye pulled the item out of Shoemaker’s pocket. It was a camera case, ‘like a 35 millimeter camera size,’ which she believed might contain a weapon. Upon opening the case, Officer Kaye found a scale and several small plastic bags containing what appeared to be crystal methamphetamine.” “[W]here, as here, the officer testified that Shoemaker was very nervous and jumpy and that she suspected the case might contain a weapon, and the case was large enough to do so, we cannot say the trial court erred in its determination that Officer Kaye was authorized to open the case. See Vaughan v. State, 279 Ga.App. 485, 488 (631 S.E.2d 497) (2006); Davis v. State, 232 Ga.App. 450, 451-452(1) (501 S.E.2d 241) (1998).” Compare Brown (September 16, 2008), above. Walker v. State, 289 Ga.App. 657, 658 S.E.2d 207 (February 19, 2008). Trial court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress; officer was authorized to pat down defendant because he reasonably believed him to be armed or otherwise dangerous. “When [Officer] Thompson encountered Walker, he had information that Walker was possibly intoxicated and had been loud, belligerent, and refused to leave the bus despite the driver’s request that he do so. Walker was sitting in the rear of the bus with an open twelve-pack carton of beer and had a white plastic bag sitting between his seat. Thompson testified that he was the only officer in the area as there were no other police units available to assist him. For these reasons, Thompson conducted a pat down search of Walker for his own safety to make sure that Walker was not armed. We cannot conclude that the trial court’s acceptance of Thompson’s claim that he conducted the pat-down out of concern for his own safety was clearly erroneous. Brown v. State, 283 Ga.App. 250, 254 (641 S.E.2d 551) (2006).” Johnson v. State, 289 Ga.App. 27, 656 S.E.2d 161 (December 14, 2007). Defendant’s convictions for drug offenses and obstruction affirmed; officers had valid grounds for attempting to pat down defendant’s person, leading to his attempted flight, seizure, search, and discovery of drugs on his person. Defendant was a passenger in a vehicle which made a U- turn, then slowly came to a stop on the shoulder of the road. Officer approached to see if the driver was okay, found that his license was suspended, and arrested him. Officer then ordered defendant/passenger out of the vehicle to perform inventory search. “When Johnson exited the vehicle, the second officer asked him if he had any weapons on him, to which Johnson responded that he had a sharp knife in his right pocket, in which he had his hand. The first officer repeatedly directed Johnson to remove his hand from that pocket, but Johnson refused. The officer tried to remove Johnson’s hand from that pocket so that the officer could pat him down and retrieve the knife, whereupon Johnson fled.” Held, defendant’s admission that he had a weapon justified officers’ attempted pat-down: “ we have consistently upheld pat-down frisks of car passengers during a traffic stop where the officer has reason to believe that the passenger may be armed with a weapon, ” citing Rucker v. State, 266 Ga.App. 293, 296(2) (596 S.E.2d 639) (2004); Howard v. State, 220 Ga.App. 579, 581(1) (469 S.E.2d 746) (1996); State v. Johnson, 209 Ga.App. 84, 87 (432 S.E.2d 580) (1993); Ammons v. State, 172 Ga.App. 235, 236 (322 S.E.2d 543) (1984). State v. King, 287 Ga.App. 680, 652 S.E.2d 574 (September 28, 2007). Trial court properly suppressed evidence seized as a result of illegal pat-down of defendant. While waiting for a friend at her home, defendant “heard a knock on the door. When King opened the door, he saw Catoosa County Sheriff’s Deputy Freddie Roden. According to King, Roden asked the whereabouts of a woman named Amanda Brown. King replied that he did not know a person by that name and that she was not at the residence. Roden asked for King’s identification, which he showed to the deputy. King had his hand on the door handle, and Roden told him to remove it. King stated, twice, that he could not let the deputy inside because the house did not belong to him. Roden forced his way inside, patted King down, and found a small metal object containing methamphetamine in his pocket. King testified that he found the box in the yard and did not know that it contained methamphetamine. King testified that he did not consent to the search of his person or of the residence.” The deputy didn’t testify, so “the record is devoid of any evidence justifying the search. King testified that the little metal object in his pocket was ‘like a key chain’; no evidence was offered to show that it appeared to be a weapon or that the officer feared for his safety.” Held, the record supports trial court’s finding that the pat-down was unauthorized. “‘A pat- down search of the outer clothing of an individual is authorized under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889) (1968) in certain limited circumstances. Terry held that when an officer is justified in believing that the individual whose suspicious behavior he is investigating at close range is armed and presently dangerous to the officers or others, he has the power to take necessary measures to determine whether the person is in fact carrying a weapon and to neutralize the threat of physical harm. Nothing in Terry can be understood to allow a generalized cursory search for weapons or, indeed, any search whatever for anything but weapons.’ (Citation, punctuation and footnote omitted.) State v.