☢ test - Í

bartender were selling drugs) and other cases based on odor of burning marijuana and reasonable belief that one of men may have been fleeing aggravated assault suspect. State v. Williams, 281 Ga.App. 187, 635 S.E.2d 807 (August 17, 2006). Although Terry stop was authorized, Terry pat- down was not because “the officers did not search Williams for weapons or deem Williams to be a threat to their physical safety prior to the search. In fact, one of the officers testified that the request to search Williams was made specifically to see if Williams was in possession of narcotics. As a result, the search of Williams exceeded the permissible scope of a Terry pat-down search and was not authorized by Williams’ conduct in walking away from the officers.” Leonard v. State, 281 Ga.App. 184, 635 S.E.2d 795 (August 17, 2006). Terry pat-down was justified: “the officer noted that Leonard went into the car’s glove compartment more than once while searching for the rental agreement; Leonard was uncooperative, initially refusing to exit his vehicle and then failing to move to the rear of the vehicle when directed to do so; and Leonard reached for his waistband while glaring at the officer, causing the officer to fear the possible presence of a weapon or physical violence.” Compared to Hodges v. State, 217 Ga.App. 806, 460 S.E.2d 89 (1995) (“question is whether ‘a reasonably prudent man in the circumstances would be warranted in the belief that his safety ... was in danger’”); distinguishing “ Edgell v. State, 253 Ga.App. 775, 778 (560 S.E.2d 532) (2002) (officer not justified in patting down the defendant where officer testified he had no fear that the defendant was armed and the officer always patted down persons he asked to exit a car).” Vaughn v. State, 279 Ga.App. 485, 631 S.E.2d 497 (May 18, 2006). “[ D]uring a valid pat-down search, where an officer reasonably suspects that a box discovered on the person contains a weapon, he or she is authorized to open the box. [Cit.] ... The officers had some knowledge that Vaughan was armed and considered dangerous. And they learned that he had a machete and two pocket knives on his person, and that one of them was small enough to fit in the tin. Furthermore, although not resisting the search, Vaughan was nervous and moving around during the search, which raised the officers’ concerns about possible weapons. Under these facts it was reasonable to conclude that Vaughan might have another knife, despite his assurances that he did not, and that one could be in the box.” The box in fact contained methamphetamine. Defendant’s argument -- that there was no need to check the box for weapons once it was in the officer’s possession – is unavailing: “we do not ‘require that police officers, faced with having to make quick determinations about self-protection and the defense of innocent citizens in the area, must also decide instantaneously what less intrusive alternative exists to ensure that any threat presented by the suspect will be neutralized.’ (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Hayes [v. State, 202 Ga.App. 204, 207, 414 S.E.2d 321 (1991)].” Distinguishing cases where officers had no reasonable suspicion that container held a weapon: Cartwright (February 11, 2004), and Jourdan (November 13, 2003), both below. Montgomery v. State, 279 Ga.App. 419, 631 S.E.2d 717 (May 16, 2006). Officer had grounds to conduct Terry pat-down where dealing with persons in possession of a car-jacked vehicle. Carjacking “is inherently a crime of violence.” Chapman v. State, 279 Ga.App. 200, 630 S.E.2d 810 (May 4, 2006). Drug paraphernalia in plain view during first-tier encounter of parked vehicle justified Terry stop and frisk. State v. Devine, 276 Ga.App. 159, 622 S.E.2d 854 (November 1, 2005). Trial court erred in granting defendant’s motion to suppress; officer’s request to pat-down defendant during a first tier encounter did not “transform[ ] this voluntary encounter into a second-level stop.” Debord v. State, 276 Ga.App. 110, 622 S.E.2d 460 (October 26, 2005). Officer’s pocket-to-pocket “pat-down” search of defendant’s clothing was not supported by consent, reasonable fear for officer safety, or articulable suspicion of criminal activity. Trial court’s finding that discovery of marijuana pipe was result of plain feel is belied by videotape of search. Trial court therefore erred in denying defendant’s motion to suppress. Any consent given to enter defendant’s pockets was the product of wrongful pat-down search. “Based on the officer’s testimony that Debord’s actions were neither aggressive or threatening, that he had fully complied with the officer’s instructions, and the officer’s failure to correlate the presence of a pocketknife with any criminal activity, we find that the officer lacked a reasonable suspicion that Debord was, or was about to be, engaged in criminal activity.” Castleberry v. State, 275 Ga.App. 37, 619 S.E.2d 747 (August 9, 2005). Physical precedent only. Pat-down of defendant was justified where sawed-off shotgun was protruding from under seat of car, defendant acted “‘fidgety’ and kept putting his hands in his pockets.” Trial court erred, however, in admitting evidence obtained when officer felt