P re su m a b ly, the m a jo rity b e liev e s the re w a s ins u ff ic ie n t p ro b a b le c a u se to o p e n the p a c k a g e u n til H o p p e felt 1 i t becau s e u nt i l t hat poi nt i n t he r eci t at i on of eve nt s l eadi ng t o openi ng t he packa ge, t he major i t y ’ s ana l y s i s of t he s ear ch was t hat of

a c ons ent s ear ch, r at her t han one bas ed on probabl e c aus e. T he “ pl ai n- vi ew” do ct r i ne al l ows po l i ce t o cons t i t ut i onal l y make war r ant l es s se i zu res of cont r aband t hat 2

o ff ic e rs se e in p la in v ie w . S ee C o o l i d g e v . New Ha mp sh i re , 40 3 U

. S. 44 3 (19 7 1 ). 

### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE

AT NAS HVILLE Apr il 25, 200 7 S es sio n ST A TE OF TE N N ES SE E v . M A R ON D ON TE BR OW N Direc t Appeal from the Cr im inal Cou rt for Bradley County

No. 02-009 R. Ste ven Bebb, Ju dge

No. E2006-01038-CC A-R3- CD - F iled March 31, 2008

Smith, J err

y L ., J udg e, dissenting

Ibelieve A

ppellant in this case g ave a valid consent for Troope r Hoppe to conduct a g ener al sear ch of A

ppellant’s ca

r. I am also in agree ment that in doing so Appe llant consented f or Hoppe to “at lea st touch items, including locke d or sea led pac kag es, conta ined within the vehicle.” Howeve r, the majority

notes and rightfully

so t h at this consent did not ex tend to tearing ope n a se a le d p a c ka g e wi thi n th e c ar. Th e ma jority sa nc tio ns Ho pp e ’s havin gdo ne so on the ba sis of

his testimony that he wa s trained in druginterdiction and that upon fe elinga close d, heavily -tape d car dboard or

pasteboa rd box he was able to immediately re co gnize the contents as a “brick” of coca ine. Wit h this last cruc ial bit of information alongwith the other c ircumstance s of the stop, the majority conclude s Hoppe ha d probable cause to open the packa g e and discover the coca ine within. 1 With out say

ing so in its opi nio n, the ma jority is b a sin gits de c isi on

on the so -c a lle d “ pla in fee l” doctrine announce d in the United States Supreme Court ca se of Minnesota v. Dickerson , 508 U.S. 366 (1993). In Dicke rson the Court he ld that if in doing a

protec tive pat down of the outside of a person’s clothing during a valid investigative detention an officer “fe els an objec t whose contour or mass make s its identit y immediately appar ent, there has bee n no invasion of the suspec t’s privac y be yon d th at a lr e a dy a

uth or ize d by the of

fi c e r’ s se arc h f

or we a po ns ; if the ob je c t is c ontr a

ba nd , it s war rantless seizure would be justified by the same pra ctical c onsiderations that inhere in the plainview conte x t.” Dicke rson , 508 U.S. 375-76. 2C o m p are cases where t he o f f i cer act ual l y f

el t t he co nt raba nd i t sel f o r f el t t he co nt raba nd t hrough p ackaging 3 th a t d id n o t co n c e a l t h e c o n te n ts’ na tur e , e .g ., Un ited S ta te s v . C ra ft , 3 0 F

. 3 d 1 0 4 4 , 1 0 4 5 ( 8 Ci r . 1 9 9 4 ) ( b u l g es of th h e ro ine p a c k a g e s a ro u n d d e fen d a n t’s an k le s) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Hug hes , 1 5 F .3d 7 9 8 , 8 0 2 (8 C i r. 1 9 9 4 ) (“sm all l um p s” th o f cr a c k c o c a ine ); St at e v. Tr i ne , 6 7 3 A .2 d 1 0 9 8 , 1 1 1 1 (C o n n . 1 9 9 6 ) (r o c k o f co c a ine in p o c k e t); P e o p le v . M itch e ll , 650 N .E .2 d 1 0 1 4 , 1 0 2 4 ( Ill. 1 9 9 5 ) (p ie c e o f “r o c k ” c o c a ine insid e b a g g ie ); St at e v. Wi ls on , 4 3 7 S .E .2 d 3 8 7 , 3 8 9 (N .C . C t. A p p . 19 9 3 ) ( “l um p s” i n pa ckage i n breast po cket ); Co m m on w eal t h v. D ors ey , 654 A. 2d 1086, 1087 ( Pa. Su per . Ct

. 1995) (“lu m p ” in p la stic b a g ); St at e v. Buchanan , 50 4 N

. W

. 2 d 40 0 , 40 4 (W i s. C t

. A p p . 19 9 3 ) ( p l ast i c b ag co nt ai ni ng co cai ne i n wai st b and ). -2- In the ca se of State v. Bridges , 963 S.W .2d 487 (Tenn. 1997) ou r s t at e s upreme court wa s fa c e d w iththe sit

uatio n o f a

va lid we a po ns pat do wn of the de fe nd ant r e ve a lin gthe pr e se nc e of a pil l bottle in which, when opened, coca ine was discovere d. The off icer in Bridges te sti fi e d a s f

oll ow s: For my protec tion Iimmediately

identified mys e lf a n d f riske d Bridge s for we apons. W

he n I tou c he d h is r igh t ja c ket po cket I i mm e dia te ly recognized a pill bottle, in that poc ket, that is used by the majority of crack dealers to hold their crack cocaine

. Icontinued the f risk and found a knife in Bridg es’ [sic] back pocket. The pill bottle containe d cra ck coc aine. I

charg ed him and al s o fo u n d a small bagof cr ack c oc a ine in t

he same po c ke t. 963 S.W .2d at 495 Th e su pr e me c ourt

fi rs t no te d th at, “ [c]o ur ts s ho uld no t surr e nd e r t

he ir c omm on se ns e assessment of the sensory capa biliti es of human touc h to an o ff i cer ’s asser

tion that he or she ‘immediately

knew’ the nature of the objec t touched.” Id . at 494. The c ourt order ed suppre ssion of th e c o ca i n e i nth e p i l l b o tt l e s t at i n g:

Whil e Of fice r B lackwe ll sai d t h at he “immediate ly rec ognized” the item as a pill bottle, unless he wa s cl ai rv oyant, he c ould not have discerne d the cont en ts from mere ly touchingthe containe r. Such a bottle, or one rese mbling it by touch, may

enclose leg al medication, c and y , p ins , f ilmor any numbe r o f o the r s ma ll i te ms. Id . at 495. In this c a se , I do no t un de rs tand , b a se d o n th e re c or d b e fo re us , h owTr oo pe r H op pe c ou ld have immediate ly

rec ognized from fee ling th e outs ide of a closed, he avily -tape d pasteboa rd or car dboard box that the brick-like obje ct in the box was nece ssari l y coca ine rather than a fruitcake or a bloc k of che ese. Had Trooper Hoppe of fer ed testimony

as to the objec tive basis upon which 3 he re lied in determiningsimply by fee l t h at the box contained coc aine, my opinion might be differ ent. However, give n the lack of such testimony , Iam not willing to ac cept the pr oposition that the sensory

capa biliti es of human touc h have evolved to the poi nt wher e even traine d police off icer sI do n ot di s pu t e t h at pac k ag es s u ch as t h e on e i n t h i s ca s e ar e of t en u s ed t o t r an s por t n ar cot i cs . B u t t h at i s n ot 4 t he i s s ue. R at her t he i s s ue i s wh et her t hr ough mer e t ouch t he of f i cer r ecogn i zed t hat t hi s par t i cul ar pack age cont ai ned cocai ne. -3- c an imme diate ly re c ognize that a se a le d, he avil y -t a pe d b ox, s uc h a s th e on e in t his c a se , n e c e ssa

ri ly contains coc aine. 4 Conclusion For the re asons stated a

bove I believe the State failed to e stablish probable c ause justifying the openingof the sea led pac kag e in Appellant’ s car , and that tea ringit open in t h e ab s en ce of probable cause exceede d the scope of Appellant’s consent to sea rch. I would suppress the e vidence dis c ov e re d b y

te ari ngop e n th e pa c ka g e . T he re fo re , I dis se nt.

________________________________________ J ERRY L . SM I TH, JUDGE