Opinion ID: 2032324
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Application of the Dickerson Standard

Text: In contrast to the facts in Dickerson, Officer Todd immediately felt what he described as a pill bottle tucked inside defendant's groin region. [9] Officer Todd did not further manipulate or grope the object in order to determine its incriminating character. [10] With due deference to the trial court's findings, we conclude that, upon feeling the pill bottle, under a totality of the circumstances, the officer had probable cause to believe that the pill bottle contained contraband. band. [11] The following facts support this conclusion: (1) the defendant got out of his car and walked away upon seeing the patrol car and uniformed officers, [12] (2) Officer Todd recognized defendant and knew of his previous drug and weapons convictions, (3) the Officers were in a high drug crime area, (4) the defendant had his hands tucked inside the front of his sweatpants while walking away from the officers and refused to take his hands out of his sweatpants after being repeatedly asked to do so, and (5) Officer Todd, having had twenty years experience as a police officer, was aware that contraband, and in particular controlled substances, were often carried in the type of pill bottle that he felt on defendant's person. We cannot imagine that any reasonable person in Officer Todd's position, given all of the above circumstances, could have concluded that Mr. Champion was carrying prescription medication, or any other legitimate item, in the pill bottle in his groin region. [13] We emphasize that courts applying the plain feel exception must appreciate the totality of the circumstances in the given case. Dickerson requires an in-depth examination of probable cause. We therefore caution that our holding is limited to the facts before us. For instance, if the pill bottle in Mr. Champion's possession had been found in his jacket pocket, or if Mr. Champion had not had his hands inside his sweatpants and he had no pockets in which to carry a pill bottle, the result may have been different. It is only under the totality of the circumstances before us, i.e., the defendant's furtive behavior, his refusal to remove his hands from his sweatpants, the officer's recognition of defendant, and his knowledge of defendant's past involvement in drug crimes, that we find that removal of this particular pill bottle was authorized. The dissent bemoans that defendant's constitutional rights are jettisoned merely because he happens to live in a poor neighborhood and has a police record and because he engaged in the simple act of putting his hands down his pants.... Op. at 870. The dissent also complains that we rely on the flight of others to infer guilt on the part of the defendant. We again emphasize that it is only under the totality of the circumstances that seizure of this pill bottle is authorized. We note that the Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee reached the same conclusion upon facts similar to this case. In State v. Bridges , 1995 WL 764998 1995 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 1006 (December 28, 1995), the officer was acting on a tip from a reliable informant that the defendant, Bridges, was at a certain location selling crack cocaine. The officer found the defendant at that location. While frisking him for weapons, the officer touched the defendant's right jacket pocket and `immediately recognized a pill bottle....' Id. 1995 WL 764998 at  1 1995 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 1006 at  4. The officer testified that he knew such bottles were frequently used by dealers to hold their crack cocaine. The officer removed the pill bottle. After concluding that the officer was engaged in a valid frisk when he felt the pill bottle, and that he immediately recognized the object as a pill bottle, the court focused on whether the officer had probable cause to conclude that the pill bottle was contraband. [14] In the instant case, [the officer] received information from an informant that the appellant was selling crack cocaine at Preacher's Place and was carrying cocaine on his person. [The officer] was also aware that the appellant had previously been convicted of a drug-related offense. While [the officer] was conducting a lawful frisk of the appellant, he encountered an object which he immediately recognized to be a pill bottle. [The officer] testified that, based on his experience, he immediately knew that it was the kind that a lot of other crack dealers will use to keep their crack in. We conclude that [the officer] possessed probable cause to believe that the pill bottle contained crack cocaine. Therefore, the seizure of the pill bottle from the appellant's person was valid. [ Id. 1995 WL 764998 at  1995 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 1006 at  18-19.] In the present case, because the patdown did not exceed the scope of Terry, i.e., it was immediately apparent during the authorized patdown that Mr. Champion was carrying a pill bottle in his groin region, and because there was probable cause that the object felt during the patdown contained contraband, the plain feel exception to the warrant requirement authorized removal of the pill bottle from Mr. Champion's sweatpants. While the plain feel exception authorized removal of the pill bottle, the question whether the officer was authorized to open the bottle without a warrant remains.