☢ test - Í

or (2) if he feels an object whose contour or mass makes its identity as contraband immediately apparent, i.e., the ‘plain feel’ doctrine.” State v. Lentsch, 252 Ga.App. 655, 556 S.E.2d 248 (November 8, 2001). Trial court incorrectly concluded that defendant’s brief restraint while the officer conducted a pat-down search for weapons amounted to an arrest requiring him to inform Defendant of his Miranda rights. Defendant initially failed to heed the officer’s command to get back in his car, the officer repeatedly informed defendant that he was merely patting him down to ensure the officer’s safety and defendant was not physically restrained after the pat-down search. Thus, there was no evidence that the officer took any action that would cause a reasonable person in defendant’s position to believe that he was under arrest before he was asked and refused to submit to a field sobriety test. Barnett v. State, 245 Ga.App. 717, 538 S.E.2d 812 (August 30, 2000). Cocaine possession and related convictions affirmed; trial court properly denied motion to suppress. Defendant was a passenger in a van which picked up a known prostitute. Officer initiated a traffic stop based on a broken taillight. As he approached the van, the officer saw Barnett “attempting to stuff a piece of paper into the air conditioner vent using his left hand. [Officer] Herold also saw that Barnett's right hand was moving, but, because of poor lighting, he was unable to see what Barnett was doing with that hand. For safety purposes, Herold ordered Barnett to show his hands, which Barnett failed to do.” Officer therefore forced open defendant’s hand. A scrap of paper containing crack cocaine was found on the floorboard of the van. Held, officer was entitled to order defendant from the vehicle and force him to reveal what was in his hand, to make sure it wasn’t a weapon. “Although Barnett was not driving the van, ‘the officers need not disregard the passenger in the [van] given the number of cases in which police officers are attacked, sometimes fatally, by passengers in vehicles.’ Dowdy v. State, 209 Ga.App. 311, 312, 433 S.E.2d 293 (1993). Herold could see that Barnett was moving his hands inside the car, and it was reasonable to fear that Barnett was reaching for a gun. Accordingly, Herold acted within his authority in demanding that Barnett show his hands. See Sultenfuss v. State, 185 Ga.App. 47, 48(1), 363 S.E.2d 337 (1987) (officers did not exceed authority in requiring defendant to show his hands and step from car and in forcibly removing him when he failed to comply).” Officer also was entitled to see what was in defendant’s hand. “‘When faced with threatening conduct by a suspect, an officer is entitled to take reasonable action to protect himself, which may involve an immediate intrusive search.’ [ Thomas v. State, 231 Ga.App. 173, 175, 498 S.E.2d 760 (1998)]. Barnett's failure to comply with repeated police demands that he show his hands constitutes such threatening conduct. See id. (defendant's refusal to remove hand from pocket reasonably caused officer to fear for his safety).” Dickson v. State, 241 Ga.App. 575, 527 S.E.2d 246 (December 16, 1999). Defendant’s VGCSA conviction affirmed; trial court properly denied motion to suppress. “Under the totality of the circumstances faced by Officer Walker, a reasonably prudent person would be warranted in believing it necessary to conduct a pat-down of Dickson. Dickson was in an area known for drug activity, in the middle of the night, standing between two cars containing other individuals, passing a large plastic bag between the cars, acting startled at the approach of the officer and failing to respond to his inquiry.” Ginn v. State, 236 Ga.App. 448, 512 S.E.2d 338 (February 12, 1999). “Once a defendant has been stopped for violating a traffic law, a police officer is entitled to execute a pat-down search for weapons. Buffington v. State, 229 Ga.App. 450, 451, 494 S.E.2d 272 (1997). This pat-down search based on Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 27, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968) does not require consent.” Accord, Harris v. State , 239 Ga.App. 537, 521 S.E.2d 462 (August 6, 1999). Corley v. State, 236 Ga.App. 302, 512 S.E.2d 41 (February 8, 1999). During a roadblock stop, one officer was writing defendant traffic tickets when second officer recognized defendant as a person “associated with … controlled substances in the past.” Officers then patted defendant down and directed him to remove contents of his watch pocket. Defendant complied, removing a bag of marijuana. Held, this amounted to a search of the watch pocket which was not justified by officer safety concerns. “‘ An officer who exceeds a pat-down without first discovering an object which feels reasonably like a knife, gun, or club must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which reasonably support a suspicion that the particular suspect is armed with an atypical weapon which would feel like the object felt during the pat-down .’ (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Clark v. State, 208 Ga.App. 896, 900-901(2), 432 S.E.2d 220 (1993). The record in this case contains no testimony or facts showing that any of the officers felt a bulge in Corley’s watch pocket that they believed to be a weapon. It shows only that the officers saw the bulge after completing their frisk of Corley. No evidence was presented that the appearance of the bulge led the officers to believe it was a weapon. And the record does not show that Corley acted in a manner that led the officers to believe he was hiding a weapon in this pocket before he was asked to show the officers the contents of his watch pocket.”