☢ test - Í

something hard and reached into defendant’s pocket, retrieving a glass pipe with drug residue. Officer did not immediately identify the item as a weapon. “Under virtually identical facts, this Court has found that an officer who knows only that an object is ‘hard’ is not justified in reaching into a suspect’s pockets to retrieve the object,” referencing Howard v. State, 253 Ga.App. 158, 160-161 558 S.E.2d 745 (2002). Accord, Sudduth v. State , 288 Ga.App. 541, 654 S.E.2d 446 (November 21, 2007) ( officer safety justified pat-down where defendant repeatedly refused to remove her hand from her pocket , but officer was not justified in removing object from defendant’s pocket where officer could not identify object prior to removing it.); Santos (November 10, 2010) , above ( officer safety justified pat-down where defendant repeatedly refused to remove her hand from her pocket ). Wilson v. State, 272 Ga.App. 291, 612 S.E.2d 311 (March 18, 2005). Trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion to suppress results of pat-down search, conducted preparatory to consensual search of defendant’s vehicle during routine traffic stop. Officer “admittedly did not see anything suspicious in the truck,” “felt [Wilson] was not a threatening person” and “nothing indicated that Wilson ‘was about to harm [him] in any way.’” Accord, Edgell (February 2, 2002), Milby (July 9, 2002), Pritchett (July 25, 2002), below. Compare Bianco (August 21, 2002), below (furtive movements, other circumstances justified pat-down). Whitener v. State, 272 Ga.App. 28, 611 S.E.2d 707 (March 7, 2005). “After observing the large bulges in Whitener’s pockets that Whitener identified as rocks, the officer was entitled to pat Whitener down for his own safety. Cf. Washington v. State, 190 Ga.App. 143, 145 (378 S.E.2d 381) (1989) (rock can be a deadly weapon).” Kinder v. State, 269 Ga.App. 99, 603 S.E.2d 496 (August 11, 2004). Conviction for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute affirmed; trial court properly denied motion to suppress. While executing a search warrant for drugs at a residence, deputy “patted-down Kinder, a visitor at the residence, for weapons to ensure the safety of the people in the residence and the officers conducting the search.” Deputy immediately recognized by plain feel the marijuana in a plastic bag in defendant’s pocket. Held, pat-down of visitor was justified: “‘[i]t is not unreasonable for officers to anticipate that those who are suspected of involvement in the drug trade might be armed.’ [Cit.]” Notwithstanding that defendant was not a target of the search warrant and was only “suspected of involvement in the drug trade” inasmuch as he happened to be present when the search was conducted. Accord, Jones v. State , 237 Ga.App. 847, 515 S.E.2d 841 (April 6, 1999); Richardson v. State , 328 Ga.App. 519, 759 S.E.2d 630 (June 26, 2014). McNair v. State, 267 Ga.App. 872, 600 S.E.2d 830 (June 15, 2004). Officers patting down defendant, suspected of trying to take bank ATM, were authorized to remove ATM card found in defendant’s pocket. Not clear how possession of the ATM card is related to theft of the ATM. Holmes v. State, 267 Ga.App. 651, 601 S.E.2d 134 (June 2, 2004). Conviction for possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute affirmed; trial court properly denied motion to suppress. Officers went to a residence to investigate reports of possible drug sales by a particular individual, Pack, who was on probation. The conditions of Pack’s probation authorized searches of his residence. On arrival at the residence, officers encountered not Pack, but defendant, who was locking the house. Defendant said he lived there but didn’t own it, denied that he was selling drugs, and invited the officers inside while he retrieved his identification. Defendant said “he didn’t want the residence searched until the owner returned,” and moved around the living room “a lot.” Officer “testified that Holmes’ behavior plus his experience that weapons are often found where there are narcotics made him nervous, so he decided to pat Holmes down for weapons.” Seeing a bulge and a piece of plastic protruding from a pocket, officer touched the bulge and testified “that when he touched it he ‘knew exactly what it was,’” namely, methamphetamine. Held, pat-down was justified by reasonable concern for officer safety, given circumstances; seizure of plastic bag and contents was justified by plain feel doctrine. Cited with approval in Hicks (September 30, 2008), above, and Boyd v. State , 300 Ga.App. 455, 685 S.E.2d 319 (September 23, 2009) (“Boyd's prior involvement with a substantial quantity of methamphetamine would alone have justified the officer's pat-down in light of the well-known association of weapons and drugs.”). Cartwright v. State, 265 Ga.App. 520, 594 S.E.2d 723 (February 11, 2004). Officer was authorized to conduct Terry pat- down based on defendant’s “threat to perform a specific future act, i.e., to shoot the neighbor’s tires out ‘if he comes back up again,’” especially given her agitated state; but then opening small wooden box found in pocket exceeded the scope of the permissible search. Officer found an ammo clip in one pocket; the wooden box was smaller than the ammo clip. The officer testified she thought the box might contain drugs, not weapons. Distinguishes Davis v. State , 232 Ga. App. 450, 501 S.E.2d 241 (1998), where officer was justified to open defendant’s cigarette box because he was still looking for “a razor blade, needle, or other small weapon,” as opposed to the officer here, who immediately shifted to a search for drugs.