Opinion ID: 1786569
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Unconstitutionality of the Search

Text: Even if Officer Gill had a reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigatory stop, his search for and seizure of the marijuana cigarettes from James's pants pocket exceeded the legal scope of Terry. Terry permits a police officer to conduct a patdown search of a suspect's outer clothing to discover guns, knives, clubs or other hidden instruments [which may be used] for the assault of the police officer. 392 U.S. at 29, 88 S.Ct. 1868 (emphasis added). The police officer may intrude beneath the outer surface of the suspect's clothing only if the police officer feels an object he reasonably suspects may be a weapon. Terry, 392 U.S. at 30, 88 S.Ct. 1868. [1] In Sibron v. State of New York, 392 U.S. 40, 88 S.Ct. 1889, 20 L.Ed.2d 917 (1968), the United States Supreme Court found that Patrolman Martin violated Sibron's Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure when Martin, without first patting down Sibron's outer clothing for weapons, thrust his hand into Sibron's pocket and took from him envelopes of heroin. 392 U.S. at 65, 88 S.Ct. 1889. In that case, Patrolman Martin observed, over an eight-hour period, Sibron talk with a number of known narcotic addicts. Although Martin did not hear the conversations between Sibron and the addicts and did not see anything passed between them, he approached Sibron and said to him: You know what I am after. Sibron then mumbled something and reached into his pocket. At that point, Patrolman Martin thrust his hand into the same pocket of Sibron and removed some envelopes containing heroin. 392 U.S. at 45, 88 S.Ct. 1889. In holding the seizure of the heroin was illegal, the United States Supreme Court stated that [t]he search was not reasonably limited in scope to the accomplishment of the only goal which might conceivably have justified its inception the protection of the officer by disarming a potentially dangerous man. Sibron, 392 U.S. at 65, 88 S.Ct. 1889. The Court noted that there was no evidence that Patrolman Martin feared for his safety when Sibron reached into his pocket. 392 U.S. at 64, 88 S.Ct. 1889. The rationale of the Sibron court was followed by the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals in Ford v. State, 680 So.2d 948 (Ala.Crim.App.1995), wherein the court held that Officer Whetstone violated Ford's protections against unreasonable search and seizure when Whetstone ordered Ford to remove the contents of his bulging shirt pocket. The court stated: Whetstone did not pat-down the outer portion of [Ford's] right shirt pocket to determine if a weapon was present and he did not inadvertently discover the narcotics in the pocket as a result of the `plain feel' doctrine. See Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366, 113 S.Ct. 2130, 124 L.Ed.2d 334 (1993). When Whetstone told [Ford] to `take it out,' referring to the contents of his shirt pocket, he went beyond a general protective exploratory search allowed by Terry and was blatantly conducting an illegal warrantless search. `Although Terry permits a warrantless search based on less than probable cause, the extent of the search must be carefully circumscribed. Because the purpose of such a search is to enable the officer to take steps to assure himself that the person with whom he is dealing is not armed with a weapon that could unexpectedly and fatally be used against him, ... the officer may only patdown the suspect's outer clothing in an effort to discover weapons.' United States v. Maestas, 941 F.2d 273, 276 (5th 1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1046, 112 S.Ct. 909, 116 L.Ed.2d 809 (1992). Ford, 680 So.2d at 951. See also White v. State, 49 Ala.App. 5, 267 So.2d 802 (1972) (holding that a police officer's search for and seizure of a marijuana cigarette from the defendant's shirt pocket exceeded the scope of Terry because the police officer continued to search the defendant after his initial search did not reveal any weapons). In the case before us, Officer Gill did not patdown the outer surface of James's pants pocket to determine if a weapon was present and did not inadvertently discover the marijuana cigarettes under the plain-feel doctrine. When Officer Gill saw James attempt to reach his hand into his pants pocket, Gill moved James's hand, reached into the pants pocket, and removed the marijuana cigarettes. Officer Gill admitted that he did not patdown the pocket before he reached inside the pocket. Also, there was no evidence that Gill feared for his safety when he saw James attempt to put his hand in his pocket. Therefore, Officer Gill violated James's right against unreasonable search and seizure when he reached into James's pocket without any legally recognized justification gained from first patting down the outer surface of the pocket to determine whether a weapon was present.