Opinion ID: 2218296
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: pocket search

Text: While a patdown may often be reasonable for safety, the following pocket search must also be based on the same safety reasons. They are distinct efforts. To proceed without a warrant or an arrest, each must be reasonable. In Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40, 88 S.Ct. 1889, 20 L.Ed.2d 917 (1968), a police officer observed Sibron talking with several known addicts over a period of eight hours. The officer knew nothing about Sibron, did not overhear any of the conversations, and did not see anything change hands. While Sibron was eating in a restaurant where he had been seen talking to addicts, the officer approached him and ordered him outside. Once outside, the officer said, You know what I am after. Sibron reached into his pocket and the officer immediately thrust his hand into the same pocket, seizing several packets of heroin. Sibron's motion to suppress the heroin was denied, and Sibron pled guilty, while preserving his right to appeal. Id., at 45, 88 S.Ct. at 1893-94. After New York appellate courts affirmed his conviction, Sibron appealed to the United States Supreme Court. The Court reversed and remanded, ruling that the heroin was illegally seized. Because the officer had no probable cause to arrest Sibron for his unknown conversations with known addicts, the pocket search of Sibron was not incident to a lawful arrest. Id., at 63, 88 S.Ct. at 1902-03. The Court did not view it as an acceptable Terry stop because the officer was unable to point to particular facts from which he reasonably inferred that the individual was armed and dangerous. Id., at 64, 88 S.Ct. at 1903. Even if the officer had reasonable grounds for a patdown, this was an unacceptable explanation because there was no patdown before the search of the pocket and because the pocket search was not reasonably limited to the accomplishments of a limited patdown purpose. Id., at 65, 88 S.Ct. at 1904. Sibron instructs that an articulable and reasonable suspicion about safety or weapons must underlie a pocket search without a warrant. Thurman, supra, too, viewed the pocket search as an event distinct from the preceding patdown. In Thurman, the trial court denied the motion to suppress. The appellate court looked separately at the patdown and at the pocket search. That patdown for weapons was also motivated by reasons of safety and detected an unidentified large bulge in the subject's jacket pocket. The officer reached into the pocket. The appellate court characterized that as a reasonable and limited component of the pat search. The California appellate court held that where an outside clothing pat search reveals the presence of an object of a size and density that reasonably suggests the object might be a weapon, the searching officer is entitled to continue the search to the inner garments where the object is located in order to determine whether the object is in fact a weapon. 257 Cal.Rptr., at 521. We concur with this ruling. The California appellate court explained: Weapon verification is essential if safety is to be preserved and a potentially volatile situation neutralized. We cannot impose a condition of certainty that the object is a weapon before allowing an officer to continue the pat search to the inner clothing site where the object is located. To do so would frustrate the objective of the pat search. We can impose a condition that an officer's belief that the object is a weapon be reasonably grounded and not a mere subterfuge for a random search. Id. The court concluded that condition had been met, that simultaneous with the verification that the object was not a weapon occurred the realization that the objects were pieces of rock cocaine contained in a baggie based on that officer's experience, and that this tactile equivalent of contraband in plain view justified completion of the pocket search. We are less certain about the tactile perceptions of this officer. Maixner testified: Q. Now the objects that you removed from his pockets other than the keys, I believe you said a pipe was how long? A. Two inches. Q. And the object attached to the key chain was an inch and a half I believe that you testified to? A. Yes. Q. What type of weapons did you believe these to be? A. I expected to pull out a knife. Q. A knife with a two inch blade and a two inch handle assuming that it opened like a jackknife? A. With all of the items in the pocket there was a bulge there, I expected to pull out a knife. The pipe was on top of the items so that would have been on the outside, the pipe is what I felt. Q. What dimensions did you believe the knife would be before you actually saw the objects, from the feel of it what did you think? A. I didn't think about what size of knife it would be. Q. Are you saying that you believed, that whatever pocket knife that Mr. Zearley had in his pocket, constituted some threat to you? A. Yes. Zearley testified: Q. What was in your pocket at the time that Officer Maixner patted you down? A. There was that little pipe and my keys and a paper folded up and then I had some money in my pocket, about eighty dollars I think that it was. Q. Did you have anything in your pocket that would feel like a weapon? A. Not that I can think of. It is not clear whether the trial court's ruled on the reasonableness of Maixner completing a search of Zearley's pocket. The trial court said: Under the circumstances in this case, Maixner should not have reasonably believed Defendant was carrying a concealed weapon. Whether this was a continuation of the trial court's mistaken analysis of the reasonableness of the patdown or was a separate finding on the reasonableness of the following pocket search is not clear to us. The trial court had the opportunity to hear and observe the witnesses and to examine the pipe and key ring in assessing the reasonableness of the officer's search. In a suppression matter, we ordinarily recognize the importance of the trial court's opportunity to assess the credibility of witnesses by according deference to its decision. State v. Thordarson, 440 N.W.2d 510 (N.D.1989). But, where we are unable to understand its decision, we cannot defer to it. In a tense situation like this confrontation, the officer may not be able to adequately and quickly access the hazards before a patdown. That is why we conclude that the patdown was reasonable. But the reasonableness of a patdown, without more, does not make a pocket search reasonable. A patdown is not simply a routine preliminary to a more extensive search. Before going further, the officer must have an articulable and reasonable suspicion that the person is armed and dangerous. On remand, the trial court must determine whether the pocket search following this patdown was reasonable. We reverse and remand for reconsideration of the suppression order in accordance with this opinion. ERICKSTAD, C.J., and MESCHKE, LEVINE, VANDE WALLE and GIERKE, JJ., concur.