[PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 16-15690

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:15-cr-20838-UU-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

PAUL JOHNSON, JR., 

 Defendant - Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(March 22, 2018)

Before JORDAN and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges, and DUFFEY,

* District Judge. 

 *

Honorable William S. Duffey, Jr., United States District Judge for the Northern District of 

Georgia, sitting by designation.

Case: 16-15690 Date Filed: 03/22/2018 Page: 1 of 20 
2

DUFFEY, District Judge:

This appeal requires us to consider whether the pat down of a burglary 

suspect and the identification of a round of ammunition in the suspect’s pocket 

constitutionally allowed the officer to retrieve the round and another item from the 

suspect’s pocket. 

I. BACKGROUND

A. Facts

The City of Opa-Locka, Florida has “high crime constantly,” including 

shootings and armed burglaries usually committed by multiple people. Hrg. 

Transcript at 3-4, 39 (Doc. 22). The Opa-Locka Police Department receives a 

“high volume of calls” including “bodily harm done to others [and] firearms used 

in different aspects of the crimes from burglaries to robberies to home invasions.” 

Id. at 22.

On June 14, 2015, shortly after 4:00 a.m., the Opa-Locka Police Department 

received a 911 call about a potential burglary in progress at a multifamily duplex

located at 2525 Superior Street in Opa-Locka (the “Duplex”). The Duplex 

contained four units. Close behind the Duplex, on the north side, was a wooden 

fence that separated the Duplex to the south from the adjacent property to the 

Case: 16-15690 Date Filed: 03/22/2018 Page: 2 of 20 
3

north. The front of the Duplex contained a small parking lot with a gate at the 

center. 

The 911 caller reported that a “person [was] trying to get through the 

window of [a] neighbor’s house” and described the person as a black male wearing 

a white shirt. Id. at 6, 19. Officer Dwight Williams was dispatched to investigate. 

During the dispatch call he was given the description of the suspected burglar. 

Officer Williams arrived at the Duplex within five minutes of receiving the 

call. Corporal B.A. Colebrooke arrived at the Duplex in a separate car at about the 

same time. When Officer Williams and Corporal Colebrooke got to the Duplex, it 

was still dark outside, and they “saw [Mr. Johnson] coming from the back, the 

west, back side of the complex” through an unlit alleyway. Id. at 5. Mr. Johnson,

a black male, was wearing a white shirt. The officers did not see anyone else in the 

area. 

Officer Williams and Corporal Colebrooke drew their weapons, pointed 

them at Mr. Johnson, and ordered him to come to the front of the building with his 

hands up. Mr. Johnson complied, and Officer Williams handcuffed him and 

ordered him to get down on the ground. Officer Holborow arrived while they were 

ordering Mr. Johnson to put his hands up. Officer Williams testified that 

Mr. Johnson matched the description given by the police dispatcher, and he told 

Mr. Johnson that he was being detained until they could “figure things out.” 

Case: 16-15690 Date Filed: 03/22/2018 Page: 3 of 20 
4

Id. at 33. Mr. Johnson was detained “very far” from the fence, “towards the front 

of the complex” in the parking area. Id. at 12, 27-28.

Officer Williams testified that, because of “the nature of the call, the area of 

the call, and the lighting conditions,” he detained Mr. Johnson and conducted a pat 

down “for officer safety.” Id. at 5, 7-8. During the pat down, Officer Williams

testified:

I felt like a nylon piece of material; and then, underneath it, a round, 

hard-like, oval-shaped object, which led me to believe it was 

ammunition, from the previous encounters with training [sic] and 

experience throughout the City of Opa-Locka.

Supp. Hrg. Transcript at 6 (Doc. 30). Officer Williams further testified:

I immediately thought it was ammunition. And then, after that, I 

immediately thought, you know, maybe there’s a weapon somewhere 

nearby, maybe there’s another person in an apartment that may come 

out with something; so, you know, I just wanted to remove that and 

just try to make the scene secure as much as possible for the other 

officers. 

Id. at 7.

Officer Williams reached into Mr. Johnson’s right front pocket and removed 

a black nylon pistol holster and one round of .380 caliber ammunition. Officer 

Williams “notified the officers in the area” and asked Mr. Johnson: “was [sic] there 

any more weapons or anything near that this ammunition and this holster goes [sic]

to.” Hrg. Transcript at 10 (Doc. 22). Mr. Johnson said there was not. 

Case: 16-15690 Date Filed: 03/22/2018 Page: 4 of 20 
5

The investigation activity continued. Two officers provided a description of 

the activity and why it was conducted.1 Officer Williams testified at the 

Suppression Hearing:

Q. Finding a person at 5 in the morning with ammunition and a 

holster in their pocket, what did you think to do next?

A. Canvas the area to see if the weapon was possibly thrown. We 

have that a lot in Opa-Locka.

Q. Why would you be looking for weapons to have been thrown? 

Can you explain that?

A. I was looking for the weapons to be thrown because the round that 

was in his pocket and the holster led me to believe that there is a 

weapon that that round goes to and something goes into that holster.

Hrg. Transcript at 10 (Doc. 22). Officer Williams further testified:

Q. So it wasn’t until after finding the holster and the bullet that the 

officers began canvassing to look for firearms?

A. Correct.

Q. They had no other reason to believe that there were any firearms 

around there?

A. We normally do a check given the nature of those type of calls.

Q. You canvas an entire area even if there is no reason, you don't find 

any kind of ammunition or holster?

A. We normally always just look around and just see if there is 

anything; weapons, narcotics, anything.

Q. Look sort of in the immediate area where the person was --

A. Correct.

Q. -- detained? And you didn’t -- and you didn’t locate any firearms 

in the, sort of, 10 feet or so surrounding Mr. Johnson?

A. No. 

Id. at 33-44. Officer Horn testified:

Q. And you mentioned this on direct as well, but so, you know, you 

arrive, you see Mr. Johnson handcuffed on the ground with a bullet 

 1 These descriptions were offered at the January 4, 2016, Suppression Hearing and the 

April 8, 2016, Supplemental Suppression Hearing.

Case: 16-15690 Date Filed: 03/22/2018 Page: 5 of 20 
6

and holster there, and then at that point officers begin to conduct a 

canvas for firearms?

A. Yes.

Q. And that’s because they found the holster and bullet in his pocket?

A. Right.

Q. And the reason for -- they had no other reason to think there were 

guns around there, right?

A. Right.

Q. And immediately the first check was sort of the immediate area 

where Mr. Johnson was detained --

A. Yes.

. . . .

Q. In your experiences in responding to a robbery, will you canvas 

the scene?

A. Sometimes if we need to find evidence.

Q. What is it that you are looking for?

A. Any evidence that would be tied to the crime that we are 

investigating.

Q. Are you also looking to secure the scene?

A. Yes, absolutely. And additional suspects.

Id. at 60, 64.

At the April 8, 2016, Supplemental Hearing, Officer Williams testified:

Q. Officer Williams, when you felt the pocket, what did you think?

A. I immediately thought it was ammunition. And then, after that, I 

immediately thought, you know, maybe there’s a weapon somewhere 

nearby, maybe there’s another person in an apartment that may come 

out with something; so, you know, I just wanted to remove that and 

just try to make the scene secure as much as possible for the other 

officers. 

Supp. Hrg. Transcript at 6-7 (Doc 30). 

During the further investigation Officer Williams walked toward the back of 

the Duplex “where [he] found a hole in the fence” separating the Duplex in which 

Case: 16-15690 Date Filed: 03/22/2018 Page: 6 of 20 
7

Mr. Johnson claimed he lived and the property behind it. Hrg. Transcript at 11-12

(Doc. 22). Mr. Johnson had been “less than a foot” away from the hole when 

Officer Williams and Corporal Colebrooke first saw him. Id. at 12. Officer 

Williams “then got in [his] car and drove around the block to the north side of [the]

[D]uplex across the fence where [he] found two pistols laying near the hole.” Id. at 

11. It took Officer Williams “15 to 20 minutes” to find the two firearms after 

retrieving the round of ammunition and holster from Mr. Johnson’s pocket. Id. at 

15. The firearms were found on the property directly north of the Duplex. Id. at 

36. Officer Williams ran a check of the serial numbers and discovered the firearms 

had been reported stolen.2

Mr. Johnson was transported to the Opa-Locka Police Station, read his 

Miranda rights, and questioned. Mr. Johnson claimed that his brother and his 

cousin bought the firearms “off the street,” brought them to his house, and the 

three of them hid the firearms in the backyard.

B. Procedural History

On October 27, 2015, a federal grand jury returned an indictment charging 

Mr. Johnson with being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).

 2 Officer Dennis Horn arrived after the ammunition and holster were retrieved from 

Mr. Johnson’s pocket. Hrg. Transcript at 41 (Doc. 22). After he helped canvass the area for 

weapons, Officer Horn knocked on the door of the unit in which Mr. Johnson claimed he lived. 

Id. at 41. After approximately fifteen minutes, Mr. Johnson’s girlfriend answered the door and 

stated that Mr. Johnson lived in the unit. Id. at 41-42.

Case: 16-15690 Date Filed: 03/22/2018 Page: 7 of 20 
8

On December 14, 2015, Mr. Johnson moved to suppress all physical 

evidence and statements derived from the pat down leading to the seizure of the 

two firearms and ammunition. Mr. Johnson argued that the officers lacked 

probable cause to search him without a warrant, the search was not incident to his 

arrest, and he did not consent to the search.

On January 11, 2016, the Magistrate Judge conducted an evidentiary 

hearing. On January 19, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued her Report and 

Recommendation (“R&R”), recommending that Mr. Johnson’s motion be denied

because the stop and pat down were lawful.

Mr. Johnson timely filed his objections to the R&R. On March 15, 2016, the 

district court chose to refer the matter back to the Magistrate Judge to develop the 

record further on the limited issue whether Officer Williams’s decision to reach 

into Mr. Johnson’s pocket was prompted by a reasonable belief that the object

identified during the pat down was a weapon or contraband.

On April 8, 2016, the Magistrate Judge conducted the second evidentiary 

hearing. At the beginning of the hearing, the Magistrate Judge stated that the 

district judge directed: 

She refer[red] the matter back to me for resolving one issue; and that 

issue, as she phrased it, was . . . “the record is unclear whether Officer 

Williams’ decision to reach into defendant’s pocket following the 

frisk of defendant’s outer clothing was prompted by a reasonable 

belief that the concealed object was a weapon or contraband.”

Case: 16-15690 Date Filed: 03/22/2018 Page: 8 of 20 
9

Supp. Hrg. Transcript at 3-4 (Doc. 30).

Officer Williams testified at the second hearing that, upon patting 

Mr. Johnson’s outer clothing, he “immediately” identified the lump he felt as 

ammunition. Supp. Hrg. Transcript at 7 (Doc. 30). On April 25, 2016, the 

Magistrate Judge issued her Supplemental R&R, which again recommended that 

Mr. Johnson’s motion be denied. Mr. Johnson filed objections to the Supplemental 

R&R. 

On May 20, 2016, the district court overruled Johnson’s objections and 

adopted the R&R. United States v Johnson, Case No. 1:15-cr-20838-UU (Doc. 37) 

(S.D. Fla. May 20, 2016). The district court found that an investigatory stop was 

reasonable under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), because the officers had 

reasonable suspicion, supported by specific and articulable facts, that Mr. Johnson 

was involved in the reported burglary. The district court concluded that, at the 

time he conducted the pat down, Officer Williams had reasonable suspicion to 

believe that his safety or the safety of others was at risk, including because the 

officers were dispatched to a suspected burglary, during the pre-dawn hours, to a

high-crime area where burglaries are typically armed and, when they encountered 

Mr. Johnson, he was in a dark alley and matched the description of the suspect 

provided by the caller. The district court also observed that, at the time of the 

Case: 16-15690 Date Filed: 03/22/2018 Page: 9 of 20 
10

frisk, the scene was not secure because the officers had not inspected the home of 

the reported burglary for additional suspects.

The district court concluded that Officer Williams’s decision to search the 

interior of Mr. Johnson’s pocket and remove the ammunition and holster was a 

permissible continuation of the initial frisk. The district court stated that “[a]n 

officer’s seizure of ammunition following a lawful frisk when investigating a 

possible violent crime, particularly when confronted with an unsecure scene, is 

sufficiently connected to officer safety not to run afoul of the Fourth Amendment.” 

Johnson, Case No. 1:15-cr-20838-UU (Doc. 37) at 12. Although the Magistrate 

Judge did not find credible Officer Williams’s testimony that Mr. Johnson 

consented to a search before the pat down, the Magistrate Judge concluded, and the 

district court agreed, that because the pat down and search of the pocket were

permissible under Terry, it was not necessary to determine whether Mr. Johnson 

consented to the search after the initial pat down. Magistrate Report and 

Recommendation (Doc. 21) at 6 n.1, 9 n.2; Johnson, Case No. 1:15-cr-20838-UU 

(Doc. 37) at 6-7.

3

On June 8, 2016, Mr. Johnson entered a conditional plea of guilty to Count 

One of the Indictment. In his written plea agreement, Mr. Johnson reserved the 

 3 Having found that Officer Williams’s pat down and removal of ammunition from 

Mr. Johnson’s pocket were lawful, the district court did not address Mr. Johnson’s remaining 

arguments for suppression of the weapons and Mr. Johnson’s statements as fruit of the poisonous 

tree because they were “conditioned on the unlawfulness of the initial search.” Johnson, Case 

No. 1:15-cr-20838-UU (Doc. 37) at 13. 

Case: 16-15690 Date Filed: 03/22/2018 Page: 10 of 20 
11

right to appeal the district court’s ruling on his motion to suppress on the grounds 

of (i) whether the pat down was permitted under Terry, and (ii) whether the search 

of his pocket exceeded the scope of Terry. The district court sentenced 

Mr. Johnson to 37 months’ imprisonment.

II. STANDARDS OF REVIEW

“A ruling on a motion to suppress presents a mixed question of law and 

fact.” United States v. Virden, 488 F.3d 1317, 1321 (11th Cir. 2007) (citation 

omitted). This Court will “review the district court’s findings of fact for clear error 

and its legal conclusions de novo.” Id. The district court’s “factual determinations 

on evidentiary issues will not be disturbed unless they are clearly erroneous.” 

United States v. Williams, 936 F.2d 1243, 1249 (11th Cir. 1991). When 

considering a ruling on a suppression motion, we construe all facts in the light 

most favorable to the party that prevailed below and afford substantial deference to 

the district court’s credibility determinations, whether explicit or implicit. United 

States v. Lewis, 674 F.3d 1298, 1303 (11th Cir. 2012).

Preserved Constitutional issues are reviewed de novo. United States v. 

Scott, 263 F.3d 1270, 1271 (11th Cir. 2001).

III. DISCUSSION

Mr. Johnson presents two issues in this appeal. First, whether the district 

court erred in finding there was a sufficient basis to justify the pat down. Second, 

Case: 16-15690 Date Filed: 03/22/2018 Page: 11 of 20 
12

whether the district court “erred in concluding that an officer was permitted to 

reach into his pocket, following a frisk of his outer clothing, where (1) the officer 

immediately recognized the object he felt as a single round of ammunition, which, 

absent a firearm . . . could pose no danger to officer safety, and (2) the round was 

not immediately apparent contraband.” (Appellant Br. at 2).

The Fourth Amendment guarantees “[t]he right of the people to be secure in 

their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and 

seizures[.]” U.S. Const. amend. IV. The Supreme Court has held that “police can 

stop and briefly detain a person for investigative purposes if the officer has a 

reasonable suspicion supported by articulable facts that criminal activity ‘may be 

afoot,’ even if the officer lacks probable cause.” United States v. Sokolow, 490 

U.S. 1, 7 (1989) (quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 30 (1968)).

To determine the legality of an investigatory stop under Terry, we first 

consider if the stop was justified at its inception. See United States v. Street, 472 

F.3d 1298, 1306 (11th Cir. 2006). We then ask whether the officer’s actions were 

reasonably related in scope to the circumstances that justified the stop in the first 

place. See id. In making these assessments, we look at “the totality of the 

circumstances—the whole picture[.]” United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 417 

(1981). 

Case: 16-15690 Date Filed: 03/22/2018 Page: 12 of 20 
13

A.

Mr. Johnson does not contest that the initial investigatory stop was lawful. 

He argues, however, that the district court erred in concluding that the 

circumstances in this case were sufficient to justify a pat down. 

“Once an officer has stopped an individual, he may conduct a pat down or 

frisk for weapons if he reasonably believes that his safety, or the safety of others, is 

threatened.” United States v. Griffin, 696 F.3d 1354, 1359 (11th Cir. 2012). The 

district court, in adopting the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, 

concluded that 

[T]he Report reasonably concluded that the following factors justified 

the pat-down of Johnson’s outer clothing: (1) the Officers were 

dispatched to a suspected burglary; (2) during pre-dawn hours; (3) to a 

high-crime area where burglaries are typically armed burglaries; 

(4) and, when they encountered Johnson he was in a dark-alley and 

matched the description of the suspect provided in the 911 call. 

Moreover, at time of the frisk the scene was not secure as the Officers 

had not inspected the home of the reported burglary for additional 

suspects.

United States v Johnson, Case No. 1:15-cr-20838-UU (Doc. 37) (S.D. Fla. May 20, 

2016) at 9-10. 

Mr. Johnson argues that “[t]here is no evidence that [he] acted evasively, 

reached for his waistband, attempted to flee, tried to strike an officer, or did 

anything else that courts generally conclude could lead an officer to reasonably 

believe he was armed and dangerous.” (Appellant Br. at 14).

Case: 16-15690 Date Filed: 03/22/2018 Page: 13 of 20 
14

In determining whether a pat down is warranted, “Terry does not demand 

definitive evidence of a weapon or absolute certainty that an individual is armed.” 

United States v. Griffin, 696 F.3d 1354, 1359 (11th Cir. 2012). In evaluating an 

officer’s actions, the court does not consider each observation in isolation. United 

States v. Lopez-Garcia, 565 F.3d 1306, 1313 (11th Cir. 2009). “[R]easonable 

suspicion may exist even if each fact alone is susceptible of innocent explanation.” 

United States v. Bautista-Silva, 567 F.3d 1266, 1272 (11th Cir. 2009) (internal 

quotation marks omitted). In determining if an officer reasonably believed his 

safety or the safety of others was threatened, the court considers “the totality of the 

circumstances in the light of the officer’s special training and experience.” United 

States v. Matchett, 802 F.3d 1185, 1192 (11th Cir. 2015).

Here, the totality of the circumstances of the investigatory stop supports the 

constitutionality of the pat down. Officer Williams, and others, received a report 

of a suspected burglary around 4:00 a.m. in a high-crime area by a black suspect 

wearing a white shirt. Mr. Johnson fit the description of the suspect and was the 

only person in the area. Mr. Johnson relies on various cases to argue that some 

specific threat was required before a pat down was allowed, but the cases cited do 

not support Mr. Johnson’s argument that more concrete threatening conduct was 

required for the officers to reasonably believe that their safety was threatened and a 

pat down justified. The question is whether a police officer reasonably believed, 

Case: 16-15690 Date Filed: 03/22/2018 Page: 14 of 20 
15

based on the totality of the circumstances, that his safety, or the safety of others,

was threatened. Griffin, 696 F.3d at 1359; see also Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 

119, 124 (2000) (explaining that an individual’s presence in a high-crime area is a 

relevant factor in the reasonable-suspicion analysis); United States v. Felix, No. 

16-16457, 2017 WL 5176219, at *4 (11th Cir. Nov. 8, 2017) (affirming district 

court’s holding that “[s]topping an individual who matches the description of an 

armed robber in relative close proximity to the crime scene, within ten minutes of 

the crime occurring, and patting them down for weapons is well within the bounds 

of the Fourth Amendment and Terry”); United States v. Hunter, 291 F.3d 1302, 

1306 (11th Cir. 2002) (stating that an individual’s proximity to illegal activity is 

relevant to the reasonable-suspicion analysis).4

The district court found that Officer Williams and the other officers were 

responding to a reported burglary around 4:00 a.m. in a high-crime area, in which 

many burglaries involve weapons, Mr. Johnson matched the general description of 

the suspect, the scene was not yet secure, and the officers were uncertain whether 

there were other suspects in the vicinity. Considering the totality of the facts, the 

district court correctly found that Officer Williams reasonably believed that his 

safety, or the safety of his fellow officers, was at risk. Giving due weight “to the 

specific reasonable inferences which he is entitled to draw from the facts in light of 

 4 We recognize that unpublished opinions are not binding on the panel. We note, however, 

that they are helpful in explaining the legal principles that apply. 

Case: 16-15690 Date Filed: 03/22/2018 Page: 15 of 20 
16

his experience,” Terry, 392 U.S. at 27, we do not believe that the district court 

erred in ruling that these facts supported a pat down or in holding that the pat down 

was allowed. The pat down did not violate Mr. Johnson’s Fourth Amendment

rights.

B.

We consider next whether Officer Williams’s decision to reach into 

Mr. Johnson’s front pants pocket and retrieve the round of ammunition and nylon 

holster impermissibly exceeded the lawful scope of a protective search. We 

conclude that it did. “The Terry case created an exception to the requirement of 

probable cause, an exception whose ‘narrow scope’ this Court ‘has been careful to 

maintain.’” Ybarra v. Illinois, 444 U.S. 85, 93 (1979) (quoting Dunaway v. New 

York, 442 U.S. 200 (1979)). The purpose of a protective search under Terry is 

“not to discover evidence of crime, but to allow the officer to pursue his 

investigation without fear of violence.” Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 146 

(1972). 

Our circuit has repeatedly affirmed that “a Terry search may continue when 

an officer feels a concealed object that he reasonably believes may be a weapon.” 

United States v. Clay, 483 F.3d 739, 743-44 (11th Cir. 2007) (affirming an 

officer’s search of a defendant’s pockets to retrieve an empty barrel of a ball-point 

pen where officer had reason to believe the item “might be a screwdriver or 

Case: 16-15690 Date Filed: 03/22/2018 Page: 16 of 20 
17

something similar that could be used as a weapon”). “Under Terry, a search does 

not exceed ‘that which is necessary for the discovery of weapons which might be 

used to harm the officer or others nearby’ if the officer has an objective, reasonable 

belief that ‘his safety or that of others is in danger.’” Id. at 744 (quoting Terry, 392 

U.S. at 26-27). The pat down and feeling of an object in a pocket is limited, 

however, to determining if the object is a weapon.

An officer’s protective frisk to search a suspect’s outer clothing for weapons

has been extended to allow the seizure of contraband—the incriminating character 

of which is apparent during an otherwise lawful pat down for weapons. Minnesota 

v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366, 373 (1993). In patting down for weapons, an officer 

may identify and seize contraband in a suspect’s pocket. As we noted in Griffin:

If a police officer lawfully pats down a suspect’s outer clothing and 

feels an object whose contour or mass make its identity immediately 

apparent, there has been no invasion of the suspect’s privacy beyond 

that already authorized by the officer’s search for weapons.

Griffin, 696 F.3d at 1363 (citing Dickerson, 508 U.S. at 375); see also Dickerson, 

508 U.S. at 375-76 (“[I]f the object is contraband, its warrantless seizure would be 

justified by the same practical considerations that inhere in the plain-view 

context.”).

The question before us is whether the ammunition round that Officer 

Williams identified justified the further intrusion into Mr. Johnson’s pocket to 

extract it and the holster. The Government does not contest that the round in 

Case: 16-15690 Date Filed: 03/22/2018 Page: 17 of 20 
18

Mr. Johnson’s pocket was not believed to be contraband when found. See United 

States v Johnson, Case No. 1:15-cr-20838-UU (Doc. 37) (S.D. Fla. May 20, 2016) 

at 12 (“Ammunition itself, though . . . is not illegal; and Officer Williams did not 

know Johnson was a felon at the time he retrieved the ammunition.”). The 

Government also does not contend that ammunition alone is a weapon. The 

Government suggests, however, that the principle in Dickerson that permits the

seizure of readily apparent contraband extends to items that are neither weapons 

nor contraband because the retrieval of an item identified during a proper Terry pat 

down does not present an invasion of privacy greater than the pat down itself. 

(Appellee Br. at 23). 

Dickerson, carefully read, does not justify the warrantless retrieval of any 

item identified during an outer garment pat down. It allows an intrusion into the 

pocket if an outer clothing search allows a police officer to conclude that an item in 

a pocket is a weapon or contraband. Items not in these two categories cannot be 

retrieved. To allow the intrusion into a pants pocket to retrieve an object that is not 

contraband or a weapon would expand Terry-based searches beyond what is 

constitutionally allowed based on the faulty reasoning that any identifiable object 

may be retrieved. It also would invite an extended pat down to identify items so 

that a further intrusion into pockets of outerwear could be conducted.

Case: 16-15690 Date Filed: 03/22/2018 Page: 18 of 20 
19

To support that the seizure of the round of ammunition was lawful, the 

district court relied on an unreported case, United States v. Perez, No. 09–20096–

01–KHV, 2010 WL 571839 (D. Kan. Feb. 12, 2010), for the proposition that 

“[e]ven though bullets by themselves are not weapons, courts have held that it is 

reasonable for an officer to retain bullets during a Terry pat down search.” 2010 

WL 571839, at *4. Perez does not support the district court’s conclusion. The 

Perez court determined that the officer’s seizure of a single bullet from the 

defendant’s pocket was illegal after concluding the defendant did not possess any 

weapons. Id. at *4 n.5. The cases cited in Perez support only the unremarkable 

proposition that various facts have been found to support an officer’s reasonable 

belief that his safety or that of others was in danger. 5

We hold, on the facts here, that the presence of a single round of 

ammunition—without facts supporting the presence, or reasonable expectation of 

the presence, of a firearm—was insufficient to justify the seizure of the bullet and 

the holster from Mr. Johnson’s pocket. While deference is owed to the experience 

and training of police officers, Officer Williams’s testimony at the supplemental 

hearing is not enough, on the facts of this case, to support the search. The district 

court’s reliance on the officers’ confrontation of an “unsecure scene” while 

 5 The cases cited in Perez stand for the proposition that recovery of ammunition from a 

pocket was allowed where there was evidence of the possession or the presence of a weapon. 

We express no view on whether those cases were correctly decided. 

Case: 16-15690 Date Filed: 03/22/2018 Page: 19 of 20 
20

“investigating a possible violent crime” did not support the additional intrusion 

into Mr. Johnson’s pocket to retrieve a round of ammunition, because a bullet was 

not a weapon and was not immediately identifiable as contraband. Therefore, the 

court erred in not suppressing the ammunition round and holster.

6

IV. CONCLUSION

We REVERSE the district court’s decision not to suppress the ammunition 

and holster and VACATE the judgment entered against, and sentence imposed 

upon, the Appellant. We REMAND this case to the district court for further 

proceedings consistent with this Opinion. 

 6 Terry searches are not “necessarily restricted to the outer clothing of the suspect” and 

“may be extended to include areas within the immediate control and ready access of the detained 

suspect.” United States v. Rainone, 586 F.2d 1132, 1136 (7th Cir. 1978). The search of the hole 

in the fence, and the adjacent property on the other side of the fence, however, cannot be justified 

as a lawful extension of the Terry search itself. The testimony showed that Mr. Johnson was 

handcuffed on the ground “very far” from the fence, “towards the front of the complex” in the 

parking area. Hrg. Transcript at 12, 27-28 (Doc. 22). It took Officer Williams “15 to 20 

minutes” to get in his car, drive around the block, and discover the two firearms in the adjacent 

parcel to the north of the Duplex. Id. at 11, 15. Thus the search of the adjacent parcel along the 

fence cannot be justified as an expansion of the initial Terry stop. See Government of Canal 

Zone v. Bender, 573 F.2d 1329, 1332 (5th Cir. 1978) (“To allow the scope of a Terry search to 

extend outside the area of immediate control would be to sever the Terry exception from its 

rationale.”).

Case: 16-15690 Date Filed: 03/22/2018 Page: 20 of 20