☢ test - Í

See also Edgell (February 2, 2002), Milby (July 9, 2002), below, and Wilson (March 18, 2005), above; compare Bianco (August 21, 2002), above. Milby v. State, 256 Ga.App. 429, 569 S.E.2d 256 (July 9, 2002). Defendant was a passenger in a vehicle stopped by police. Driver gave officer consent to search the vehicle, whereupon officer ordered defendant out of the vehicle and patted him down without consent. Held, officer failed to show any reasonable fear for officer safety coming from defendant, despite fact that officer “saw the truck drive away from a high drug area, and Milby and the driver lied about coming from that location and appeared to be nervous and shaking.” Officer’s “general practice of routinely patting down anyone who exits a car does not provide a reasonable basis for concluding that the subject is a threat to the officer’s safety.” Accord, Edgell (February 15, 2002), below, Pritchett (July 25, 2002), Wilson (March 18, 2005), above. Compare Bianco (August 21, 2002), above (furtive movements, other circumstances justified pat-down). Edgell v. State, 253 Ga.App. 775, 560 S.E.2d 532 (February 15, 2002). Defendant was a passenger in a vehicle pulled over for an expired tag. No other criminal wrong-doing was suspected of the driver or defendant. The officer advised the driver that he was not going to arrest him, but that he was going to tow the vehicle. Defendant then attempted to leave the car and call someone for a ride, but the officer stopped him and instructed him to stay seated. The officer then approached defendant, ordered him out of the car, and patted him down despite defendant’s protests. The officer “stated that it was his habitual practice to automatically perform a pat-down ‘anytime anybody gets out of a vehicle .’” The officer felt a hard object in defendant’s pocket which he suspected to be a crack pipe. When defendant refused consent to remove the item from his pocket, the officer placed both men in handcuffs and called a supervisor. When the supervisor arrived, the officer reached in defendant’s pockets and pulled out a crack pipe and marijuana. Held , the results of the search should have been suppressed for two reasons: first, because the officer had no reasonable articulable suspicion of wrong-doing and had no right to detain the defendant when he first attempted to leave; and second, because the pat-down was not justified by a reasonable basis for concluding that the suspect was armed or was otherwise a threat to his personal safety. A pat-down cannot be justified merely as part of a general practice of patting down all persons asked to exit vehicles: “An individual’s rights under the Fourth Amendment are not automatically waived ... simply because he or she is asked to step out of a vehicle.” Accord, Milby, (July 9, 2002), Pritchett (July 25, 2002), Wilson (March 18, 2005), above; Teal v. State, 291 Ga.App. 488, 662 S.E.2d 268 (May 12, 2008) (officer’s habit of patting down all persons asked to exit car, arrest of driver, did not justify pat-down of passenger). Compare Bianco (August 21, 2002), above (furtive movements, other circumstances justified pat-down). State v. Cannon, 253 Ga.App. 445, 559 S.E.2d 76 (January 11, 2002). Officer made a routine traffic stop for speeding and weaving. Officer observed that the occupants of the vehicle “were moving around like they were hiding items in the car” when they saw his marked patrol car behind them. Upon approaching, officers noted that all four occupants of the vehicle smelled of marijuana, and they acknowledged they had smoked it earlier. One officer recognized defendant, a passenger in the vehicle, from prior drug arrests. During a Terry pat-down, defendant refused to remain still and moved to prevent the officer from feeling his upper thigh, saying “Don't touch me, don't touch me, I got crabs.” The officer “felt a small bulge in [defendant]’s groin area.” The officer shook the pants leg, and a small plastic bag containing Ecstacy fell out of the pants leg onto the ground. Defendant moved to suppress the results of the pat-down, arguing that the officer exceeded the permissible scope of a Terry pat-down. Held, trial court erred in granting the motion. Officers were justified in conducting the pat-down because it was admitted that drugs were being used, there were four men in the car, it was 2:30 a.m., and defendant was known to be involved in the drug trade. “It is not unreasonable for officers to anticipate that those who are suspected of involvement in the drug trade might be armed.” The totality of circumstances warranted the belief that defendant was hiding contraband in his pants, thus justifying the search. Accord, Chapman v. State , 279 Ga.App. 200, 630 S.E.2d 810 (May 4, 2006); Brint v. State , 306 Ga.App. 10, 701 S.E.2d 507 (September 10, 2010) (Pat- down search for weapons was justified for officer safety where officers were executing search warrant for drugs at residence, although the officers weren’t familiar with defendant.). Howard v. State, 253 Ga.App. 158, 558 S.E.2d 745 (January 7, 2002). Officers investigating a suspected drug dealer encountered him on the road. The lead officer conducted a Terry pat-down of his person. In his front left pants pocket, the officer felt “a tubular type, round, object. Probably what, three and half inches long, three inches long… About the same dimension wide.” The object was hard. The officer looked in the pocket and pulled out two plastic prescription bottles containing contraband. Defendant moved to suppress the results of the search. Held, trial court should have granted the motion to suppress. A Terry pat-down is not a full search, and is conducted only for officer safety. The officer “may intrude beneath the surface in only two instances: (1) if he comes upon something that feels like a weapon,