☢ test - Í

Pritchett, 256 Ga.App. 698, 700(1) (569 S.E.2d 616) (2002) (officer’s observation of spoon in defendant’s pocket did not justify pat-down search). Compare Holmes v. State, 267 Ga.App. 651, 652-653 (601 S.E.2d 134) (2004) (defendant’s nervous behavior inside residence justified pat-down search to ensure defendant was not armed).” Evidence later obtained by search warrant issued as a result of the pat-down was “fruit of the poisonous tree” and properly suppressed, as well. Lester v. State, 287 Ga.App. 363, 651 S.E.2d 766 (August 28, 2007). “[T]he facts reported in the 911 call raised the possibility of a domestic violence situation, causing [Officer] Gianfala concern for both the woman’s safety and his own. Lester’s nervous demeanor and behavior also concerned Gianfala, so he ask for and received consent to pat Lester down for weapons. On appeal, Lester asserts that his consent was not voluntary. But even absent consent, Lester’s actions, as well as Gianfala’s safety concerns, authorized the officer to frisk him. See Woods v. State, 275 Ga.App. 340, 344(1)(b) (620 S.E.2d 609) (2005).” Accord, Johnson v. State , 302 Ga.App. 318, 690 S.E.2d 683 (February 11, 2010) (attempt to pat down was “neither arbitrary nor harassing” in light of dispatch report that defendant “was attempting to cut into the convertible’s top”). Foster v. State, 285 Ga.App. 441, 646 S.E.2d 302 (May 2, 2007). Trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion to suppress; officer exceeded scope of frisk for officer safety by reaching in defendant’s pocket and pulling out cigar. Reach into pocket also was not justified by plain feel doctrine, as the cigar was not “immediately identifiable as contraband.” Accord, Sudduth v. State , 288 Ga.App. 541, 654 S.E.2d 446 (November 21, 2007) (officer testified he didn’t know what object was when he pulled it from defendant’s pocket) ; Johnson v. State , 297 Ga.App. 847, 678 S.E.2d 539 (May 14, 2009) (Trial court erred by denying defendant’s motion to suppress; officer was not entitled to order defendant to pull an identification card out of his pocket and show it to officer during pat-down.); Cleveland (October 5, 2012), above. Perez v. State, 284 Ga.App. 212, 643 S.E.2d 792 (March 14, 2007). Defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel where counsel failed to file meritorious motion to suppress. Officers detained defendant on the street on suspicion that he was involved in a series of residential burglaries. Officers had no basis for believing that defendant was armed or dangerous when they patted him down. In fact, officer “freely admitted that he performed the pat-down for weapons before he ever questioned Perez, and that he did so not because he suspected Perez of being armed or dangerous, but simply because they were in a ‘dangerous area.’ ” Accord, Thomas v. State , 301 Ga.App. 198, 687 S.E.2d 203 (November 19, 2009) (officer not authorized to pat down defendant seen leaning into passenger side of car in parking lot known for drug activity, but no drugs seen). Feaster v. State, 283 Ga.App. 417, 641 S.E.2d 635 (February 2, 2007). “Approaching the vehicle he had stopped for speeding, [Officer] Resturrucci observed that the driver, the truck, and the cargo were consistent with descriptions in a lookout for an armed robber and his truck. Resturrucci testified that when the driver stepped out of the truck, dropping shell casings, he placed him in custody and performed a pat-down to search for weapons. He explained, ‘Because the shells fell I was specifically looking for that type of weapon.’ During the frisk, Resturrucci felt the additional shell casings in Feaster’s left pocket. Under these circumstances, he was authorized under Terry to intrude into the armed robbery suspect’s pocket and retrieve them .” Brown v. State, 283 Ga.App. 250, 641 S.E.2d 551 (December 15, 2006). Officers were justified in patting down group of men: “At the hearing on the motion to suppress, City of Monroe Police Officer Barry Finley testified that on January 18, 2006, he was looking for an individual suspected of having shot someone a couple of days earlier. Another officer informed Finley that some men were loading furniture into a moving van at the suspect’s address. Believing that the suspect was attempting to leave town, Finley and yet another officer went to the address. Upon exiting his patrol car, Finley observed several men standing in the back of the van; and he detected a strong odor which, through his years of law enforcement experience, he recognized as burning marijuana . He repeatedly asked who was smoking the marijuana, but no one responded. Out of concern for his and the other officer’s safety, he decided to pat each of the men down for weapons. When asked why he was concerned for his safety, Finley gave a two-part explanation. First, he testified, ‘Most of the time when you have drugs or any type of drugs or marijuana, weapons and drugs they go together usually, people do tote some type of weapon with them when they have drugs.’ Finley further explained that ‘also we were looking for a guy that just shot a man two days [earlier].... [A]t that time, I didn’t know if [the suspect] was in that van at that time either.’ When Finley asked the men to put their hands up against the wall of the van, they complied. While frisking Brown, Finley felt something in his pocket that seemed like a baggie with lumps in it. When Finley asked Brown what he had in his pocket, Brown replied that it was marijuana.” Distinguished from Clark v. State , 239 Ga.App. 569, 510 S.E.2d 319 (1998) (police lacked particularized suspicion to search all bar patrons based on information that bar owners and