Opinion ID: 849089
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Scope of Terry

Text: Clearly, the cardboard seized by the officer was not seized in order to advance the interest of protecting the officer. The officer did not remove the photographs on belief that they were a dangerous instrumentality, but on suspicion that they were cardboard. The officer further suspected that the item he felt was used to blot acid. In my view, the majority's opinion in this case is the first evil escaping the Pandora's box opened in People v. Champion . [6] In Champion, the majority extended the United States Supreme Court decision in Dickerson to encompass plain feel seizures of items that might contain contraband. [7] Justice Brickley dissented, explaining why seizures of items not appearing to be contraband themselves is illegal. Though Justice Brickley's opinion did not win the day, I continue to believe that it was correctly decided. I would adhere to his view, that when the officer patted the objects in the defendant's pocket and knew that they were not a weapon, the removal of those objects was unrelated to the protection of the officer's safety. Thus, the exigencies supporting the patdown were unrelated to the subsequent seizure. Regardless of the view of Champion to which one subscribes, it is clear that the exigencies purportedly justifying the patdown search of the defendant in this case did not justify the seizure. [8] Even the majority recognizes the patdown in this case occurred as part of a protective sweep, but that the seizure was justified pursuant to the plain feel doctrine. Thus, we must turn to Dickerson's requirement that a plain feel seizure be supported by probable cause.