Opinion ID: 2972829
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Ammunition

Text: Thomas also claims that the officers “exceeded the scope of the Terry frisk by seizing from the defendant’s pocket what . . . appeared to feel like a bullet.” As the government points out, however, Thomas did not make this argument in his motion to suppress or in his objections to the magistrate’s report. A review of the record supports this conclusion. Accordingly, -4- United States v. Ronnie Thomas No. 04-5872 Thomas has waived this argument. United States v. Critton, 43 F.3d 1089, 1093 (6th Cir. 1995); United States v. Yannott, 42 F.3d 999, 1005 (6th Cir. 1994); United States v. Crimson, 905 F.2d 966, 969 (6th Cir. 1990). This Court will: consider a claim first raised on appeal only to correct errors that “are obvious, or if they otherwise seriously affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” United States v. Atkinson, 297 U.S. 157, 160 (1936). As this court has stated the rule, “the plain error doctrine is to be used sparingly, only in exceptional circumstances, and solely to avoid a miscarriage of justice.” United States v. Cox, 957 F.2d 264, 267 (6th Cir. 1992) (quoting United States v. Hook, 781 F.2d 1166, 1172 (6th Cir.) (citations omitted), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 882 (1986)). Critton, 43 F.3d at 1094. Under the facts presented, Thomas’ claim is without merit. An officer may seize contraband discovered during a lawful frisk or pat down, even without a warrant. Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366, 375 (1993). Here, the discovery of this ammunition helped attenuate “the extraordinary risks to which law enforcement officials are exposed during investigatory detentions,” which provides a large part of the justification for permitting Terry stops. United States v. Swann, 149 F.3d 271, 274 (4th Cir. 1998). Further, the officers clearly had probable cause to believe that the bullets were related to criminal activity. Finally, the bullets would have been discovered incident to Thomas’ later arrest. In short, Thomas’ claim regarding the bullets does not affect the fairness, integrity, or reputation of his proceedings.