2007 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
10-22-2007 

# U SA v . Y amb a P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 06-2581

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2007 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j amin
. C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du
. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" U SA v . Y amb a" (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 306. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/306H onor abl e H ar ol d A

. A ckerm an, Seni orU ni t ed St at es * D i s t r i ctJ udge forthe D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey , s i t t i ng by P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

N o. 06- 2581

UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. VI KR AM YAMBA, A ppel l ant

A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D

. C

. C r i m i nal A ct i on N o. 04- cr - 00329- 1) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e Thom as M

. H ar di m an
Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

A pr i l 24, 2007 B efore: M cK E E and A M B R O , C i rcui tJudg es, A C K E R M A N , D i s t r i ctJ udge. *des i gnat i on. 2 ( O pi ni on fi l ed : O ct ober22, 2007) A d am B

. C o g an , E sq u ir e O n e N o rt h g ate S q u are G r eens bur g, PA 15601 C ouns el forA ppel l ant M aryB eth B uchana n U ni t ed St at es A t t or ney R ebec ca R. H ayw ood A s s i s t antU

. S. A t t or ney R o b ert L

. E b erh ard t, E sq u ir e O ffi ce of U ni t ed St at es A t t or ney 700 G r antSt r eet , Sui t e 400 Pi t t s bur gh, PA 15219 C ouns el forA ppel l ee

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

A M B R O , C i r cui tJ udge In th is a p p e a l w e e x p lo r e th e c o n to u rs o f a c o ro llary t oT he i ndi ct m entl i s t s s even w i r e comm uni cat i ons form i ng t he 1 b a sis o f th e se v e n se p a ra te c o u n ts a g a in st Y a m b a , “a ll i n v io la tio n o f

T itle 1 8 , U n ite d S ta te s C o d e , S e c tio n s 1 3 4 3 a n d 2 .” T he D i s t r i ctC our ti nt erpr et ed thi s t o m ean thatY amba w as i n d i c t e d u n d e r1 8 U. S

. C. § § 1 3 4 2 a n d 1 3 4 3

. T h o u g h we r e c o g n i z e t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ’ s r e a d i n g i s p l a u s i b l e , we b e liev e in ste a d th a t th e re f e re n c e to “ a n d 2 ” se e k s to in c o rp o ra te acc om pl i ce l i abi l i t yi nt o t he i ndi ct m en tunder18 U

. S. C

. § 2. G i ven thes e di fferi ng, butr eas onabl e, r eadi ngs

— and the fa ct th a t th e f irst r e q u ire m e n t o f

a v a lid in d ictm e n t is th a t it“ f a irly i nfo rm s a defen dan tof the charge againstw hich he m ust defe nd, ” Haml i n gv . Uni t e d S t a t es , 4 0 8 U

. S. 87, 117 ( 1974)

— t he G overnm en t m ay w i s h t o cons i dera mannerof ci t at i on t o t he U

. S. C ode thatcaus es l es s confus i on. 3 t he “pl ai n vi ew ” doctr i ne, know n as “pl ai n fee l , ” i n t he cont ext of a T erry s ear ch. A ft erdoi ng s o, w e conc l ude thatt he s ear ch a t issu e h e re – d u rin g w h ich a n o f f ice r dis c o v e re d m a riju a n a in V i kr am Y amba’ s pocket , and thi s i n tur n l ed t o t he di s coveryof s l i ps of pape rr es ul t i ng i n hi s convi ct i o n fo rw i r e fr aud – w as leg a l. W e th e re f

o re a f f irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D istric t C o u rt.
I . Fac t ual and Pr oc e dur al Backg r ound
Y amba w as i ndi ct ed by a gr and j ur yon s even c ount s of w i r e fr aud, i n vi ol ati o n of 18 U

. S. C

. §§ 1343 and 2. T he 1 e v id e n c e a g a in st Y a m b a in c lu d e d se v e ra l p iec e s o f p a p e r w ith w hat appeared t o b e credi tcard nu m bers w ri t t en o n them

. T hese pap e r s wer e d i s c o v e r e d o n Yamb a ’ s p e r s o n d u r i n g a r out i neT he D i s t r i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on under18 U

. S. C

. § 3231; 2 w e have j ur i s di ct i on under28 U

. S. C

. § 1291. 4 i nvent or y sea rch t hatt ook pl ace w hen he w as booked att he pol i ce s t at i on aft erhavi ng been a r r es t ed forp o ssess i on of m arij u an a. A fter u n su cc essf u ll y m o v ing to su p p ress the p ap ers a s th e f ru its o f a n ill e g a l se a rc h , Y a m b a w a s fo u n d g u iltyo n a ll s even c ount s aft era benc h t r i al

. H e w as s ent ence d t o 18 m ont hs i n pr i s on and thr ee y ear s of s uper vi s ed r el eas e. O n t hi s appea l he cha ll enges onl yhi s convi ct i on, ar gui ng t hatt he s ear ch that turn ed u p the m a ri

ju a n a w as il lega l and , thu s, that the p ap ers di s cover ed athi s booki ng on m ar i j uana- pos s es s i on char ges s houl d have be en s uppr es s ed athi s t r i al on t he w i r e fr aud charges. 2
T he fa ct s as found byt he D i s t ri ct C o ur tr egar di ng t he in iti a l se a rc h (w h ich re v e a led th e m a riju a n a ) a re se t o u t in d e tail in th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s th o ro u g h o p in io n . See U ni t ed St at es v. Y am ba , 407 F. Supp

. 2 d 703, 705–06 ( W

. D

. Pa. 2006)

. T he C o u rt ’s f

in d i n g s a re n o t c le a rl ye rr o n e o u s , U ni t ed Stat es v. P er ez , 280 F. 3d 318, 336 ( 3d C i r . 2002) , and w e su m m ar i ze t hem her e. Wh i l e o n d u t y , Of

f i c e rM a t t h e w L i v i n g s t o n e s a w a UH aul t ruck parked at a gas s t at i on i n a mannert hatbl ocked one of the entr ances from t he street , as w el l as som e parki ng spaces. L i vi ngs t one appr oache d t he t ruck. A s he gotcl os er , he s aw t hat t he dr i ver , C har l es C ol eman, w as hol di ng an open poc ketkni fe.5 L i vi ngs t one al s o s aw t w o pas s enger s i n t he truck, Y amba and J i m aah K pakpo, m aki ng “qui ck and f ur t i ve movem ent s ” bel ow t he das hboar d.
W hen O ffi cerL ivi ngs t one as ked C ol eman w hathe w as doi ng att he gas s t at i on, C ol eman r es ponded t hathe, Y amba, and K pakp o wer e d e l i v e r i n g f u r n i tu r e t o f

r i e n d s . Col e man, how ever , coul d notpr ovi de the names of thes e fr i ends ort he addr es s t o w hi ch he w as del i veri n g t he furni tur e. L i vi ngs t one t hen as ked t o s ee Col eman’ s dr i ver ’ s l i cens e and t he r ent al t ruck agr eemen t. H e al s o as ked i f ther e w as anyt hi ng i n t he truck bes i des fur ni tur e. C ol eman resp o nded thatt her e w as notand t ol d L i vi ngs t one thathe coul d s ear ch the truck i f he w ant ed. B e f o re L iv in g sto n e d id so , th o u g h , h e ra d io e d h is d isp a tch e r to chec k on C ol eman’ s cr edent i al s , and the di s pat cherr ep o rt ed that t her e w as an out s t andi ng w arr antfor hi s arr es t
. L i vi ngs t one then h an d cu ff

ed C o lem an an d sat h im in the p o li ce ca r. A ft ert hat , L i vi ngs t one as ked Y amba and K pakpo t o s t ep out of t he t ruck i n or der t o conduct a pat dow n s ear ch of both of th e m . W h e n h e w a s fr isk in g Y a m b a , L iv in g sto n e f e lt a p las tic bag i n Y amba’ s r i ghtj ack etpocket

. L i vi ngs t one t es t i fi ed, credi blyaccording t o the D i stri ctC ou rt , as fol l ow s: A s I w as conduct i ng t he pat

- dow n, al ong t he r i ght s i de, r i ght coat pocket , I coul d fee l a pl as t i c bag. I n o ted th ro u g h tr a in in g a n d e x p e rie n c e [ th a t] n a rc o tics a re sto re d a n d tra n sp o rte d in p las tic6 b a g g ie s . A f

te r a b ri e f

s e c o n d o f

ju s t f e e lin g it, I coul d t el l t hatt her e w as a s ofts pongy -l i ke s ubs t ance t hat i s cons i s t ent w i t h m ar i j uana i ns i de. I t hen r ecove r ed the bag f r om hi s pocketand found i tcont ai ned s us pect ed mar i j uana. L i vi ngs t one then handc uffe d Y amba and put h im in the pol i ce carw i t h C ol eman. T he pat dow n s ear ch of K pakpo w as u n e v e n tf u l.
A tt hat poi nt O ffi cer L i vi ngs t one s ear ched the r earof the U -H a u l an d f

o u n d th a t itc o n ta in e d n e w f u rn itu re , w ra p p e d in pl as t i c. U pon ques t i oni ng, K p ak p o s ai d t hathe ow ned the fur ni tur e, t hathe had pur chas ed i t w i t h a cr edi tcar d, and thathe w as s el l i ng i t
. Soon after t hi s , t he di s pat cheri nfor m ed L i vi ngs t one that s he had mi s t akenl yr epor t ed thatt her e w as an ou t st and i ng w arr ant for C olem an’s arrest, b u t that hi s l i cense w as s us pended. L i vi ngs t one w r ot e C ol eman a t i cketfordr i vi ng w i t h a s us pended l i cens e and then r el eas ed him an d K pakpo. B eca us e ther e w as now no dr i verfort he U -H au l, L i vi ngs t one had i ti m pounded. H e arr es t ed Y amba forpos s es s i on of m ar i j uana. A tt he pol i ce s t at i on d u ri n g Y amba’ s booki ng, an i nvent or ys ear ch o f h is per s on r evea l ed “s ever al s l i ps of pape r w i t h t he w or ds ‘ cr edi tcar d’ and l i nes of num ber s al t ernat i ng dow n t he page

. ” W hen Li vi ngs t one as ked Y amba abouti t , he r epor t ed thathe had r ece ived t he pape r s fr om a fr i end.7 L i vingsto n e t hen read Y am ba h i s Mi r anda w arni ngs and quest i oned hi m . B as ed on thatques t i oni ng, L i vi ngs t one obt ai ned a s ear ch w arr antfort he U -H au l. I tw as l at er det er m i ned that t he fur ni tur e i n t he U

- H aul w as pur chas ed fr om a K au fm an n ’s de p artm en t st o re w ith o n e o f th e c re d itca rd n u m b ers f

o u n d o n th e p a p ers d isco v ere d d u ri n g the in v en tory se a rc h . T h is led to Y a m b a ’s c o n v ictio n , w h ich f o rm s th e b a sis o f th is a p p e a l.
We r e v i e w de novo t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s ru li n g tha tt he i n it ial pat
- dow n s ear ch r evea l i ng t he mar i j uana w as l egal and, t hus , t hatt he papers d is cover ed atbooki ng w er e admi s s i bl e at th e tr ia l o n th e w ir e f

ra u d c o u n ts
. P er ez , 280 F. 3d at336.
I I . D i s cus s i on Y a mba ’ s a r g u me n tp r o c e e d s i n t wo p a r t s . Fi r s t , he c o n ten d s th a t th o u g h O f f ice r L iv in g sto n e o ste n sib lyse ize d h im pur s uantt o T

e rr y v . O h io , 392 U

. S. 1 ( 1968) , t he s ei zur e i n fac t w as i l l egal , as t hat cas e does not per m i t an off i cert o do s o under t hes e ci r cumst ance s . Second, h e ar gues t hat , even i f he w as pr oper l y s ei zed, t he subs equent s ear ch of hi s per s on w as out s i de the sco p e a ll o w ed u n d er T erry . W e a d d re ss e a c h c o n ten tio n in tur n. A . T he T

erry St op I n T erry , t he S up rem e C ou rtheld t hat a w arr antl ess8 s ei zu re ba s ed on l es s t han pr obabl e ca us e coul d be cons t i tut i onal l yper m i s s i bl e. Speci fi cal l y , t he C our ts ai d t hat

w her e a poli ce offi cerobs er ves unus ual conduct w hi ch l eads hi m r eas onabl yt o concl ude i n l i ghtof hi s exper i ence t hat cr i m i nal act i vi t ym aybe af oot and t hat t he per s ons w i t h w hom he i s deal i ng m ay be arm ed and prese nt l ydanger ous , w her e i n t he cour s e of i nves t i gat i ng t hi s behavi orhe i dent i fi es h im se lf a s a p o lice m a n a n d m a k e s re a so n a b le i nqui r i es, and w her e nothi ng i n t he i ni t i al s t ages o f th e e n c o u n ter se rv e s to d is p e l h is re a so n a b le fea rforhi s ow n or ot her s ’ s afe t y , he i s ent i t l ed for th e p ro tec tio n o f h im se lf a n d o th e rs in th e a re a to conducta ca r eful l yl i m i t ed s ear ch of the out er cl ot hi ng of s uch per s ons i n an att empt t o di s cover we a p o n s wh i c h mi g h tb e u s e d t o a s s a u l th i m. I d. at30. I n out l i ni ng t he cont our s of a pe r m i s s i bl e “ T erry sto p ,” th e C o u rt n o ted th a t “[ t]h e o f f ice r n e e d n o t b e a b so lu tely ce rt ain th at t h e ind ividu al i s ar m e d ; th e issu e is w h ethe r a r eas onabl yprudentm an i n t he ci r cumst ance s w o u l d be w a rra n ted in th e b e lief

th a t h is sa f

e tyo r th a t o f

o th e rs w a s in danger

. ” I

d. a t 2 7 . “T h e p o lice o f f ice r m u st b e a b le to p o in t to s peci fi c and ar t i cul abl e fa ct s w hi ch, t aken t ogetherw i t h r at i onal in f e re n c e s f ro m th o s e f

a c ts , r e a s o n a b ly w a rr a n t th e in tru s io n .” I d. at21. C ons i s t ent w i t h t hes e s t at ement s , w e have rul ed that w hen “determ in in g w hethera st op i s j ust i fi ed, t he co urtm ust9 v i e w t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s s u r r o u n d i n g t h e s t o p i n t h e i re n t i r e t y, gi vi ng due w ei ghtt o the exper i ence of the off i cer s . ” U

ni t ed St at es v. R i ckus , 7 3 7 F

. 2 d 3 6 0 , 3 6 5 (3d C ir

. 1 9 8 4 ).
I n t h is c as e, t he ent i r etyof the ci r cumst ance s , as des cr i bed byO ff

ic erL i vi ngs t one’ s t es t i m ony( found byt he D i s t r i ct C our t t o be cr edi bl e) , j us t i fi ed the T erry s t op of Y amba. Fi r s t , t he U

- H aul i n w hi ch Y amba s at w as par ked i n an odd and o b s t ru c t i v e ma n n e r . S e c o n d , a s L i v i n g s t o n e a p p r o a c h e d t h e UH aul he obs er ved the dri ver , C ol eman, hol di ng an open poc ket kni fe. T hi r d, he al s o not i ced “qui ck and fur t i ve movem ent s ” by t he pas s enger s , Y amba and K pakpo. A nd four t h, upon havi ng hi s di s pat cher run a chec k on C ol eman’ s l i cens e, L ivi ngs t one w a s in f o r m e d th a t C o lem a n h a d a n o u tsta n d in g a rre st w a rra n t. T hi s r epor tl at erpr oved t o be i n err or , but L i vi ngs t one w as not u n re a s o n a b le in re lyin g o n it. S e e U n itedS ta tes v . Mo se ly , 454 F

. 3 d 2 5 9 , 2 6 0 n . 1 6 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 6 ). G i ven thes e fa ct s , L i vi ngs t one w as “j us t i fi e d i n bel i evi ng that the in d ividu al w h o se su sp ici o u s b eh av io r he [w a]s in v e stig a tin g a t clo se ra n g e [ Y a m b a ] [ w a ]s a rm e d a n d p re se n tly danger ous t o t he off

i cer or t o ot her s . ” T

erry , 3 9 2 U. S

. a t2 4

. As L i vi ngs t one t es t i fi ed,

T h e p a t- d o w n w a s f

o r o f f i c e r s a f e ty. I al readyhad on e k n if

e . I kn ew t here w as a w eapon i n t he ca r , and a l ot of t i m es w e as pol i ce offi cer s l i ke t o add pl us one. W h er e ther e’ s one10 w eapon, t her e’ s l i kel yanotherw eapon. T her e w ere t hr ee of

t hem at one poi nt [C ol e ma n , Yamb a , a n d Kpa k p o ] , a n d t h e r e was m y s el f and mypar t ner [, w ho arr i ved att he s cene sh o rt lyb ef

o re Y am b a’s p at-do w n ]. S o w e’re o u t n u m b e r e d

. I tw a s f

o ro f f i c e rs a f e t y.

. . . .

. . . . W e al r eadyhad one w ant ed per s on.

. . . .

. . . . T he fas t m ovement s of th e hands goi ng fr om t he das h and th en b ei ng conce al ed underneath t hem and w hat appea r ed t o b e in t he pocket s w as al s o an i s s ue.

. . . T he fa ctt hatM r . C ol eman co u ld not pr ovi de anyans w er s t o s i m pl e ques t i ons t hatI had a s k e d h i m a l s o r a i s e d mys u s pi c i o n o f s o me p o s s i b l e c r i m i n a l a c t i v i t y. T hi s t e s t i mon y

— a g a i n , f o u n d b y t h e Di s t r i c t Cou r t t o be cr edi bl e— r evea l s t he “s peci fi c and a r t i cul abl e fa ct s w hi ch,Y amba does not cont es t t he i nvent or y s ear ch, onl yt he T erry 3 s ear ch. 11 t aken t og et her, w i t h rat i on al i nferences from t ho se fact s, r eas onabl yw arran t[ed ]” su b jecti n g Y am ba t o a pat
- dow n s ear ch. I d. at 21

. T h e sto p , there fo re, w as ju sti fied u n d er T erry . B . S e izin g th e C o n tr a b a n d u n d e r th e “ P la in F e e l” D oc t r i ne T hatO ffi cerL ivingst one w as ent i t l ed t o s t op Y amba u n d er T erry s t i l l l e a v e s t h e q u e s t i o n o f wh e t h e rt h e p a t
- d o wn s ear ch w as pr oper l yconduct ed. For i f i t w as not , t her e w oul d be a ri p p l e e f

f e c to n t h e c r i mi n a l c a s e a g a i n s th i m, e n d i n g i n t he excl us i on of the pape r s w i t h al l egedl ys t ol en cr edi tcard num ber s as “frui t [s ] of the poi s onous t r ee. ” W ong Sun v. U

ni t ed St at es , 3 7 1 U .S . 4 7 1 , 4 8 7

– 8 8 (1 9 6 3 ); see Si bron v. N ew Y ork , 3 9 2 U .S . 4 0 , 6 5

– 6 6 (1 9 6 8 ); Un i t e d S t a t e s v . Br o wn , 448 F. 3d 2 3 9 , 2 4 4 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 6 ). T h o se p a p e rs, o f c o u rse , w e re f

o u n d in a rout i ne (a nd l egal ) i nvent or ys ear ch upon Y amba’ s booki ng at th e p o lic e s ta tio n , Il l i no is v. L afaye tte , 4 6 2 U

. S

. 6 4 0 (19 8 3 ), w h ich to o k p lac e a f

ter h is a rre st— a n a rre st m a d e p o ss ib le o n ly byt he di s coveryof m ar i j uana dur i ng t he T

erry s ear ch. 3
I n T erry , t he Supr eme C our ts ai d t hat “[t ] he scope of the s ear ch m us t be s t r i ct l y t i ed t o and j us t i fi ed by t he ci r cumst ance s w h ich re n d ere d it s init iat ion p erm is s ib le .” 3 9 2 U

. S

. at 18

. It late r e x p o u n d e d o n th a t sta tem e n t w h e n sp e a k in g a b o u t T erry12 s e a r c h e s s p e c i f

i c a l l y: T h e p u rp o se o f th is lim ited se a rc h is n o t to di s coverevi dence of cr i m e, butt o al l ow t he offi cert o pur s ue hi s i nves t i gat i on w i t houtfea rof v io len c e . . . . S o lo n g a s th e o f f ice r is e n tit led to m ake a for ci bl e s t op, and has r eas on t o bel i eve t hatt he s us pecti s ar m ed a n d danger ous , he may conducta w eapons s ear ch lim ited in sc o p e to th is protect i ve pu rpose . A da ms v . Wi l l i a ms , 407 U

. S. 143, 146 ( 1972) ( footnot e omi t t ed) ( emphasi s ad ded)

. T he pr opers cope of a s ear ch bec om es crit ical w h e n p o li ce d isco v er so m ethin g su sp ici o u s the yw ere n o t ex p e c tin g o r in ten d in g to f in d . A n d in su c h a c a se th e “ p lain vi ew ” doc tr i ne oft en governs w hethert hei rdi s coverycan be a d m itte d a g a in s t a d e f

e n d a n t
. See, e. g. , A r iz ona v. Hi cks , 480 U

. S

. 3 2 1 (19 8 7 ).
A s th e S u p re m e C o u rt h a s s a id , p re c e d e n t h a s “ c o m e to re f lec t th e ru le th a t if, w h ile l a w f u ll y e n g a g e d in a n a c tiv ityin a p a rticu lar p lac e , p o lice o f f ice rs p e rc e iv e a su sp icio u s o b jec t, t heym ays ei ze i ti m m edi at el y . ” T ex a s v . Br o wn , 460 U

. S. 730, 739 ( 1983) ( pl ur al i t yopi ni on) ( ci t i ng Fr az i erv. C upp , 39 4 U. S. 7 3 1 ( 1 9 6 9 ); H

ar r is v. U

ni t ed Stat es , 3 9 0 U

. S

. 2 3 4 (19 6 8 ); U n itedS ta tes v . L e

fko w itz , 2 8 5 U .S . 4 5 2 (1 9 3 2 ); M ar r on v. U ni t ed Stat es , 275 U

. S. 192 ( 1927) )

. T he “pl ai n vi ew ” doctr i ne, t her efor e, i s bes tunder s t ood “not as an i ndepende ntexce pt i onT hi s i s not t o expr es s our di s appr oval of the “pl ai n hear i ng” 4 and “pl ai n s m el l ” appl i cat i ons of the “pl ain v ie w ” doctr i ne, nei t herof w hi ch ourC our thas exami ned i n a pr ece dent i al opi ni on. 13 t o t he w arr antcl aus e, buts i m pl y as an ext ens i on of w hat evert he p ri o r j u s tif

ic a tio n f o r a n o f f ic e r’ s a c c e s s to a n o b

je c t m a yb e .” Br o wn , 4 6 0 U

. S

. at 73 8

– 3 9 (i n terna l qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted). S o un derst oo d, cou rt s hav e l og i cal l y extended t his con cep t to p erm it the ad m issi o n o f e v iden ce d isco v ere d w ith o ther se n so ry f a c u ltie s . See, e. g. , U

ni t ed Stat es v. A ngel os , 433 F. 3d 738, 747 ( 10t h C i r . 2006) ( “pl ai n s m el l ”) ( ci t i ng U ni t ed St at es v. H

al ey , 6 6 9 F .2 d 2 0 1 , 2 0 3 (4 th C ir. 1 9 8 2 ); U ni t ed St at es v. C l ayt on , 210 F .3 d 8 4 1 , 8 4 5 (8 th C ir. 2 0 0 0 ); U ni t ed St at es v. R higer , 315 F. 3d 1 2 8 3 , 1 2 9 0 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 3 )); Uni t e d S t a t e s v . Ba r anek , 903 F .2 d 1 0 6 8 , 1 0 7 0

– 7 2 (6 th C ir. 1 9 9 0 ) (“ p lain h e a rin g ” ). In th is c a s e , we d e a l wi t h a n o t h e r a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e “ p l a i n v i e w” d o c tr in e : “ p la in f

e e l.”
U nl i ke “pl ai n hear i ng” and “ pl ai n sm el l , ” w hi ch the Supr eme C our thas notdeci ded, i thas puti t s i m pr i m aturon “pl ai n fee l

. ” I n Mi nnes ot a v. D i cke rs on , t he C our tt ook up t he

4 i s s ue of “ w hetherp o li ce offi cer s m ays ei ze nonthr eat eni ng contr aband de t ect ed dur i ng a pro t ect i ve pat dow n s ear ch of the s o r t p e r m i t t e d b y T

erry ,” an d d e c id e d th a t “ th e a n sw e r cle a rlyis t hatt heym ay , s o l on g as the offi cer s ’ s ear ch s t ay s w i t hi n t he b o u n d s m a r k e d b y T

erry . ” 508 U

. S. 366, 373 ( 1993)

. Si nce D i cke rs on , ourC our thas nothad the oppor tuni t y to exami ne14 and appl yi t s t eac hi ngs i n a pr ece dent i al opi ni on. I n Di c ke rs on , pol i ce of fi cer s w er e patr ol l i ng a n e i g h b o r h o o d a n d s a w t h e d e f e n d a n tl e a v i n g wh a twa s k n o wn to th e m a s a “ c ra c k h o u se .” W h e n h e sa w th e o f f ice rs in th e ir p a tro l c a r, th e d e f

e n d a n t “a b ru p tlyh a lted a n d b e g a n w a lk in g in t he oppos i t e di r ect i on. ” I d. at368–69. H e t hen w al ked i nt o an al l ey . T hi s act i vi t yar ous ed the su sp i ci on of the off i cer s , and t heydeci ded t o i nves t i gat e furt her

. A ft eror der i ng t he def endant t o s t op, one of the off i cer s conduct ed a T

erry sea rch of

t he defendant

. A ccor di ng t o t he C our t , “[t ] he s ear ch r evea l ed no w e a p o n s, b u t th e o f

f ice r d id tak e a n in ter e st in a sm a ll l u m p in [the def endant ’ s ] ny l on j acke t
. ” I d. at 369. T he off

i cert es t i fi ed l at eratan evi dent i ary hear i ng t hat , “[a ] s I pat
- s ear ched the fr ont o f h is b o d y , I f

e lt a lu m p , a s m a ll lu m p , in th e f r o n t p o c k e t. I exami ned i tw i t h m yfi nger s and i ts l i d and i tfel tt o be a l um p of cr ack c ocai ne i n cel l ophane. ” I d. A t t hat poi nt t he of fice r
“ re a c h e d in to [ th e d e f

e n d a n t’s] p o c k e t an d re triev e d a sm a ll p la s tic b a g c o n ta in in g o n e f if th o f o n e g ra m o f

c ra c k c o c a in e .” I d. T h e tr ia l c o u rt a d m itt e d th e c o n tra b a n d b y“ a n a lo g izin g to t he ‘ pl ai n- vi ew ’ doctr i ne. ” I d. T he M i nnes ot a C o u rt of A ppeal s , t hough fi nding a val i d T erry s t op, r ever s ed the evi d e n t i a ryru l i ng, concl udi ng t hat“the off i cer s had over s t epped t h e b o u n d s a l l o w e d b y T erry i n s ei zi ng t he coc ai ne. ” I d. at370. B o th the M inn eso ta S u p rem e C o u rt an d the U

. S

. S u p rem e C o u rt aff i r m ed.
Be f o r e a d d r e s s i n g t h e “ p l a i n f e e l ” c o n c e p t , t h e S u p r e me15 C o u r t f ir st d e sc rib e d th e “ p lain v iew ” d o c trin e f ro m w h ich it der i ved: [I ] f pol i ce a r e l aw ful l yi n a posi ti o n fr om w hi ch t heyvi ew an obj ect , i f i t s i ncr i m i nat i ng char act er i s i m m edi at el yappar ent , and i f the off i cer s have a l aw fu l r i g h to f

a c c e s s t o t h e o b

j e c t , t h e ym ay s ei ze i t w i t hout a w arr ant
. I f, how ever , t he pol i ce lac k p ro b a b le c a u se to b e liev e th a t an o bje c t in p l a i n v i e w i s c o n t r a b a n d wi t h o u tc o n d u c t i n g s o me f u rth e r se a rc h o f

th e o b

jec t— i

. e. , if its in c rim in a tin g c h a ra c te r is n o t im m e d iate ly appar ent

— t he pl ai n- vi ew doctr i ne ca nnotj us t i fy i t s s ei zur e. I d. at375 ( ci t at i ons , br acke t s , and i nt ernal quot at i on m ar ks om i t t ed)

. A ppl y i ng t hi s rul e, t he C our t focus ed on t h e t r i al cour t ’ s fi ndi ngs r egar di ng w hat t he offi cer bel i eved abo u t the l um p i n t he def

endant ’ s pocket

. Speci fi ca ll y , i tnot ed thatt he offi cer“mad e n o cl ai m t hathe s us pect ed thi s obj ectt o be a w eapon. ” I

d. at 378 ( i nt ernal quot at i on m ar ks om i t t ed)

. “[T] he offi cer ’ s ow n t es t i m ony , ” t he C our tw enton t o s ay , “bel i es any not i on thathe ‘ i m m edi at el y ’ r ecogni zed the l um p as cr ack coca i ne. R ather , . . . t he off i cerdeterm ined t hatt he l um p w as con t raband on l y aft er squeez i ng , sl i ding, and other w i se m ani pul at i ng t he cont ent s of t he def endant ’ s pocket

— a pocke t w hi ch the off

i ceral r eadyknew cont ai ned no w eapon. ” I d.16 Si nce D i cke rs on , m a n yc o u rts h a v e f o c u se d o n e x a c tly h o w “ im m e d iate ly ” a n o f f ice r m u st k n o w th a t so m e th in g f e lt dur i ng a T

e rry s ear ch i s contr aband orpr eci s el yhow m uch a cl ot hed obj ectcan be mani pul at ed bef or e a s ear ch bec om es ille g a l. See, e. g. , Un i t e d S t a t e s v . Wi l l i a ms , No

. CRI M

. RDB0 5 -02 4 0 , 2 0 0 5 W L 1 9 0 2 4 9 0 , at *6 (D

. M d

. A u g . 9 , 2 0 0 5 ); U n i t ed Stat ed v. R am i r ez , N o. 02 C R 1228( G E L ) , 2003 W L 2 6 0 5 7 2 , at * 7 (S .D .N .Y . F e b . 5 , 2 0 0 3 ) (“ N o d o u b t a m e t a p h ys i c i a n c o u l d d r a w d i s t i n c t i o n s b e t w e e n ‘ i m m e d i a t e l y’ know i ng s om ethi ng, know i ng i taft era ‘ s econd ort w o, ’ bei ng 9 0 % c e rta in o f so m e th in g a f ter ru n n in g o n e ’s f

in g e rs a c ro ss it, and kn ow i ng for cert ai n aftersqueez i ng i t
. ”). A nd i n t he co urse of adm i t t i ng i n evi dence cert ai n contr aband thatw as di s cover ed i n a T erry s ear ch, cour t s have c r edi t ed t es t i m ony bys om e pol i ce o f f ic e rs th a t s u g g e s ts re m a rk a b le s e n s o ry p o w e rs . See, e. g. , U ni t ed Stat es v. A s hl ey , 37 F

. 3 d 6 78, 681 ( D

. C

. C i r . 1994) ( admi t t i ng i n evi dence contr aband know n “i m m edi at el y ” t o be cr ack, des p it e the fac tt hati tw as found “i ns i de tw o pai rof p a n ts, a p a ir o f

b rie f s, a p a p e r b a g , a p a p e r n a p k in , an d a p las tic b a g ” )

. E v e n t h e o f

f i c e ri n t h i s c a s e t e s t i f i e d

— c r e d i b l y, acc or di ng t o t he D i s t r i ctC our t

— that aft erfee l i ng t hr ough a “m idd le m ed ium w eigh t j ac k et” f o r w h at “ [p ]rob ab lyw asn ’t even a hal f sec ond, ” he ne ver t hel es s “coul d t el l r i ghtaw ay ” that t he l um p i n Y amba’ s pocketw as m ar i j uana. W e re jec t a n a rro w f

o c u s o n h o w q u ick lya n d c e rta in ly t he natur e of an obj ectfel tdur i ng a T erry s ear ch i s know n and on how m uch m ani pul at i on of a pe r s on’ s cl ot hi ng i s acc ept abl e.17 In T erry , t he Su prem e C ou rt authori zed poli ce offi ce rs to per for m a r out i ne pat
- dow n s ear ch forw eapons . Such s ear ches nece s s ar i l yi nvol ve a c er t ai n amount of “sque ezi ng, s l i di ng and othe r w i s e mani pu l a t i ng ” of a s us pe c t ’ s ou t e rc l othi ng , 50 8 U. S. at 3 7 8 , i n a n a t t e mptt o d i s c e r n whe t h e rwea p o n s a r e h i dden u n d e rn e a th . T h u s, th e p r o b le m w ith th e o f f ice r’s a c tio n s in D i cke rs on m us tbe more t han s i m pl yt hei ro cc u rr ence . A nd a cl ose readi ng of the case r eveals w hat that “m ore” entai l s. T he C our ti n D i cke rs on cl ear l yi dent i fi ed the obj ectof a prop er T erry s e a rc h : w e a p o n s . I d. at373 ( s t at i ng t hata T erry s ear ch “mustbe s t r i ct l y l i m i t ed t o t hat w hi ch i s nece s s ary fort he di s covery of w eapons w hi ch m i ght be us ed t o har m t he off i cer orot her s n earby

. ” ( i nt ernal quot at i on m ar ks om i t t ed) )

. T he s ame se n tence i n D i cke rs on t hati dent i fi ed “s queez i ng, s l i di ng an d o therw ise m an ipu lat ing th e c o n tents o f th e d ef en d an t’ s pocket ” as a pr obl em al s o not ed t hat t he off i cercomm i t t ed the o f f e n d in g c o n d u c t w h e n h e “ a lre a d yk n e w [ th e p o c k e t] cont ai ned no w eapon. ” I d. at378. T he C ourt r epea t ed the r efr ai n i n t he nextpar agr aph:
H er e, t he off

icer’s cont i nued expl or at i on of [the defe nd ant’ s] po cket af

t erhavi ng concluded that i t contai ned no w eapon w a s u n re late d to th e so le justi fica ti o n o f th e se arc h u n d er T erry : t he p r o t e c t i o n o f

t h e p o l i c e o f

f i c e ra n d o t h e r s n e a rb y. Itthere fo re a m o u n ted to the s o rto f e v iden ti ary se a rc h th a t T

erry exp r es s l yr efus ed t o author i ze18 and t hat w e hav e con dem ned i n s ub sequen tcases. I d. (em ph asi s add ed; br ackets , el l i psi s, i nternal quotat i on m arks, a n d c ita tio n s o m itte d ).
T h e p rop er q u esti o n u n d er D i cke rs on , t her efor e, i s not t he i m m edi acyand ce r t ai nt yw i t h w hi ch an o ff i cerknow s an obj ectt o be contr aband ort he amount of m ani pul at i on r equi r ed t o acqui r e thatknow l edge, butr ather w h at t he off i cerbel i eves t he obj ect i s by t he t i m e he concl udes t hat i t i s n o t a w ea p on. Th a t i s , a T

erry s ear ch ca nnotpurpos el ybe us ed t o di s cover contr aband, buti t i s per m i s s i bl e t hat contr aband be conf i s cat ed i f s pont aneous l ydi s cover ed dur i ng a pr oper l yexecut ed T erry s ear ch. M or eover , w hen det er m i ni ng w hethert he s cope of a p arti cu lar T

erry s ear ch w as pr oper , t he ar eas of focus s houl d be w hethert he off

i cerhad proba bl e caus e t o bel i eve an obj ectw as contr aband before he knew i t not t o be a w eapon and w hetherhe acqui r ed th at k n o w l edge i n a mannercons i s t entw i t h a r out i ne f ri s k

. U ni t ed Stat es v. Jones , 303 F. Supp. 2d 702, 706 ( D

. M d. 2 0 0 4 ) ( c i t i ng D icke rs on , 5 0 8 U .S . at 3 7 6 ; Hi cks , 480 U

. S. at 3 2 7 ).
A s s um i ng t hat an offi cer i s author i zed t o conducta T erry s ear ch atal l , he i s author i zed t o as s ur e hi m s el f t hata s us pecthas n o w e a p o n s. H e is a llo w e d to slid e o r m a n ip u la te a n o b jec t in a s us pect ’ s pocket , cons i s t entw i t h a r out i ne fr i s k, unt i l t he offi ceri s ab l e r eas onabl yt o el i m i nat e the pos s i bi l i t yt hatt he obj ecti s a w eapon. I f, b ef o re thatpoi nt , t he off

i cerdevel ops19 pr obabl e ca us e t o bel i eve, gi ven hi s t r ai ni ng and expe r i ence , t hat an o b ject i s co n tr ab an d , h e m aylaw fu ll yp erf o rm a m o re i nt rus i ve s ear ch. I f, i ndeed, he di s cover s contr aband, t he off i cer ma ys e i z e i t , a n d i twi l l b e a d mi s s i b l e a g a i n s tt h e s u s p e c t
. I f, h o w e v e r, th e o f

f ice r “ g o e s b e y o n d w h a t is n e c e s sa ryto det er m i ne i f t he s us pecti s ar m ed, i ti s no lon g er v al i d under T erry and i t s frui t s w i l l be s uppr es s ed. ” D i cke rs on , 508 U

. S. at 373.
I n m ak ing this rul i ng, w e j oi n atl eas tt w o of ours i s t er c o u r t s o f a p p e a ls th a t h a v e f ra m e d th e is s u e in th is w a y . See U n itedS ta tes v . M

a tta ro lo , 209 F. 3d 1153, 1158 ( 9th C i r . 2000) (“H ad the off

i cercont i nued t o m ani pul at e the obj ectbey ond w h a t w a s n e c e ss a ryto a sc e rta in th a t itp o se d n o th re a t, he w o u ld have run afoul of t he Supr eme C our t ’ s hol di ng i n Mi nnes ot a v. D i cke rs on .”); U

nit ed St ates v. R og ers , 1 2 9 F

. 3 d 7 6 , 7 9 (2d C ir

. 1997) ( “Ser geantM as on w as conduct i ng a l aw ful pr ot ect i ve pat dow n s ear ch ( a poi nt t hat R oger s conce des ) w hen he f el tt he heavyobj ect i n R oger s ’ coat pocket

. H e mani pul at ed the obj ect fo r ‘a fe w sec o n d s’ t o d ete rm in e w h at i t w as, an d fe lt‘a h ard obj ectand then a s ofter obj ect
. ’ A tt hatpoi nt , M as on w as not y etabl e t o excl ude the pos s i bi l i t y t hat t her e w as a w eapon i n t he pocket , s o t hatt he s ear ch w as s t i l l w i t hi n t he bounds of T erry , and M as on had bec om e ‘ fai r l ycert ai n’ t he pocke tcont ai ned drugs . T hatbel i ef, combi ned w i t h R oger s ’ evasi ve and su spi ci ous conduct , gave the off i cer s pr obabl e ca us e t o s ear ch R o g ers’ p o ck et fo r co n tr ab an d

. T h e p o li ce w ere there fo re p erm itted to rem o v e a n d o p en the ro ll ed -up p ap er b ag . ”).T h e cont exti ndi cat es t hatt hi s r efe r s t o t he l aw n- t ype 5 v a r i e t y. 20 I n o u rcas e, O ffi cerL i vi ngs t one “f el tar ound” or ot herw i s e “mani pul at ed” the cont ent s of Y amba’ s pocketi n t he p ro c e ss o f c h e c k in g f

o r w e a p o n s w h e n h e c a m e a c ro ss w h a t in hi s exper i ence coul d be contr aband. I ti s notkeyw hether L i vi ngs t one w as cert ai n t hat t he obj ecti n Y amba’ s pocketw as c o n tra b a n d b yth e tim e h e k n e w it n o t to b e a w e a p o n ; w h a t is k e yis w h e th e r L iv in g sto n e h a d p ro b a b le c a u se to b e liev e th a t it w as and thi s occurr ed att he s ame m om entorbefor e he det er m i ned thatY amba had no gun on hi s per s on. T he r ecor d demonst r at es t hatpr obabl e ca us e i ndeed exi s t ed bef

or e Li vi ngs t one’ s s ear ch w ent bey ond t he bounds of T erry . L iv in g sto n e tes tifie d th a t, w h e n h e f e lt Y a m b a ’s p o c k e t, he coul d fee l a pl as t i c bag c ont ai ni ng a “s oft [, ] s pongy - l i ke su b sta n c e .” T h o u g h it i s tru e , as Y a m b a ’s c o u n s e l n o ted in c r os s - e xam i nati on , “grass o r ore g an o ” m igh t fee l s i m i l ar l ys oft [ 5] or sp on gy , pe op l e do no tno r mal l ygo a r ou nd w i t h tho se subst ances i n thei r po ckets

. M oreove r, O ffi cer Livi ng st on e al so f e lt “s m a ll b u d s a n d se e d s” a lo n g w ith th e c o n ten ts of th e p las tic b a g . T h i s d e t a i l i s mo r e c o n s i s t e n twi t h ma r i j u a n a t h a n l a wn gr as s oror egano. B as ed on Li vi ngs t one’ s exper i en ce, he re a so n a b ly su sp e c ted th a t Y a m b a h a d m a riju a n a in h is p o c k e t. H i s bel i ef w as r eac hed qui ckl y and upon m i ni m al m ani pul at i on o f Y amba’ s pocketfr om t he out s i de, cons i s t entw i t h a r out i ne f r i s k a l l o w e d b y T

erry . A n d th o u g h L iv in g sto n e a d m itt e d to21 m ani pul at i ng t he obj ect even aft er for m i ng t he bel i ef thati tw as nota w eapon, he onl y d id s o t o “mak[e] s ur e i tw as w hat[he] knew i tt o be. ” In ot her w or ds , by that poi nt O ffi cerL i vi ngs t one alr eady had pr obabl e caus e t o conduct a m or e i nt rus i ve s ear ch t h a n t h a ta u t h o r i z e d b y T erry al one. W hi l e one may r eas onabl yques t i on t he ver aci t yof O ffi cerL i vi ngs t one’ s t es t i m ony , i tw as cr edi t ed by t he D i s t r i ct C our t
. W er e w e the fa ct
- fi nder , w e m ay n o t ha ve done the sa m e ; b u t w e c a n n o t sa yth a t th e C o u rt’s f in d in g w a s c lea rly err oneous . N evert hel es s , cons i s t entw i t h t he l egal s t andar d s et outabove, w e purpos el ydo notr el yon t he pr eci s i on of O ffi cer L iv in g sto n e ’s te stim o n yth a t h e re a c h e d h is c o n c lu sio n w ith in “a ha l f s econd. ” H ow everl ong i t t ook L i vi ngs t one t o for m t hat bel i ef, t he r ecor d i ndi cat es t hathe di d s o w i t hi n t he b o u n ds of T erry , as t her e i s not hi ng t o s ugges t t hat he conduct ed anyt hi ng b e y o n d a ro u tin e f

risk u n til a f

ter th e r e w a s p r o b a b le c a u se to s e a r c h m o r e i n t ru s i v e l y. * * * * *
For t hes e r eason s, t he T erry s ear ch thatr evea l ed m ar i j uana in Y amba’ s coatpocketw as conduct ed w i t hi n t he bounds s etbyt he Supr eme C our t
. W e ther efor e af fi r m t he D istri ct C o u rt ’s de n ial o f Y am b a’s m o ti o n to sup p ress th e laterdi s cover ed s l i ps of pape rand, cons equent l y , hi s convi ct i ons for w i r e fr aud.