☢ test - Í

Apparently the officer’s belief that the box might contain drugs wasn’t strong enough to invoke the plain feel doctrine. Distinguished in Vaughn (May 18, 2006), above. Rucker v. State, 266 Ga.App. 293, 596 S.E.2d 639 (February 10, 2004). Convictions for trafficking in amphetamines and related offenses affirmed. Terry pat-down justified by officer’s concern for safety occasioned by large bulges in defendant’s pockets and crotch, and long time it took car to stop. Cited with approval, Johnson (December 14, 2007), above. Williams v. State, 265 Ga.App. 489, 594 S.E.2d 704 (February 9, 2004). Cocaine possession and related convictions affirmed. Officer was authorized to pat down defendant for weapons “[b]ased on the number of people present in the house [7] and the suspected drug activity” – “‘strong odor of marijuana’ and drug pipe” found in consensual search. “[T]he Terry pat-down was reasonable to ensure the officer’s safety.” Second search was supported by probable cause: “the officers’ initial detection of the odor of marijuana, [homeowner] Ragland’s lie concerning other people being present in the house, Williams’s extreme nervousness.” State v. McKinney, 265 Ga.App. 322, 593 S.E.2d 865 (January 28, 2004). Trial court erred in granting motion to suppress results of pat-down; officer had “a reasonable belief that the officer’s safety... [was] in danger” based on defendant’s presence in a gated area posted against loitering in parking lot of hotel in high crime area. Defendant and his friend said they were there to see a friend, but could give no name or room number. Friend denied having any drugs or weapons, but defendant “didn’t answer. He just stood there staring at me with a blank stare,” causing officer to believe he might be armed. He was. “The risk of injury justifies reasonably tailored protective reaction to a citizen’s threatening action even in ‘tier-one’ investigative encounters. Were it not so, the cost would be too high for such encounters.” Accord, Stagg v. State , 297 Ga.App. 640, 678 S.E.2d 108 (April 29, 2009) (officer entitled to inspect bulge caused by cigarette pack in defendant’s pocket during consensual pat-down). State v. Jourdan, 264 Ga.App. 118, 589 S.E.2d 682 (November 13, 2003). Motion to suppress properly granted; Terry pat-down for weapons did not justify DNR ranger’s intrusion into defendant’s package of cigarettes. Although officer testified that cigarette boxes sometimes hide weapons, nothing about this one made him suspect that any weapon was hidden inside. Given that testimony, and fact that rangers had previously found drugs at site where defendant was found, evidence authorized trial court’s finding that search of cigarette box was not motivated by search for weapons, but was an attempt to gather evidence. A hunter’s Fourth Amendment rights are not abrogated merely because hunting is an activity regulated by the State. Distinguished in Vaughn (May 18, 2006), above. Mohamed v. State, 276 Ga. 706, 583 S.E.2d 9 (June 30, 2003). Exterior pat-down was permissible where officer ‘was investigating a man who was seen in a stolen car, had previously fled police, and knew that [officer] was investigating a crime. Immediately [upon encountering the officer], the man put his hands into his pockets.” Likewise, officer was justified in reaching into defendant’s pockets: “at the time [officer] reached in to Mohamed’s pocket to remove the [stolen credit cards], he knew that Mohamed had lied about two items in his pockets that could be used as weapons, and that the sort of objects he felt in the pocket were ones that, in his experience had been known to have been fashioned into weapons” (with razor blades). Bianco v. State, 257 Ga.App. 289, 570 S.E.2d 605 (August 21, 2002). “[T]here was sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s finding that a reasonably prudent man could fear for his safety in this situation. The evidence was that officers were patrolling the park because of ‘ongoing problems in some of the county parks with drug gang and theft activities.’ Bianco’s furtive movement as the officer approached, her possession of a knife, Sickles’s fidgety movements and refusal to keep his hands in view on the trunk of the car, were sufficient to justify a protective search for weapons.” Compare Edgell (February 2, 2002), Milby (July 9, 2002), Pritchett (July 25, 2002), below, Wilson (March 18, 2005), above (routine pat-downs without factors warranting concern for safety result in suppression of evidence). State v. Pritchett, 256 Ga.App. 698, 569 S.E.2d 616 (July 25, 2002). After stopping defendant and writing him tickets for driving without a motorcycle license and speeding, the officer noticed a spoon protruding from defendant’s pocket. The officer conducted a non-consensual pat-down, felt some unidentified items, and pulled from defendant’s pocket a syringe and two pills. Defendant was charged with unlawful possession of the pills. Held, trial court properly suppressed the results of the search. The officer stated no basis for believing defendant constituted a threat to him; he did not intend to arrest defendant, so the search was not incident to arrest. Even if the pat-down had been lawful, the officer had no right to remove the items from the pocket, since he did not recognize them as contraband by “plain feel” before removing them.