Court Opinion

ID: 9861256
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 23:50:37.778339+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:27:50.697013
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE BOWMAN, dissenting: I respectfully dissent. I believe the trial court’s ruling was fully justified since the search involved here was a proper "plain feel” search under the authority of Minnesota v. Dickerson (1993), 508 U.S. 366, 376, 124 L. Ed. 2d 334, 346, 113 S. Ct. 2130, 2137. The majority start off on the right foot: I agree with their conclusion that the continued exploration of a subject’s pocket after the officer concludes that it does not contain a weapon exceeds the scope of a Terry frisk. (Dickerson, 508 U.S. at 377-78, 124 L. Ed. 2d at 347-48, 113 S. Ct. at 2138-39.) Objects discovered in such an exploration may not be used to establish probable cause. However, defendant does not dispute that, had Officer Cimaglio identified the cannabis in a proper manner, that information, coupled with the officer’s other knowledge at the time of the stop, would have provided probable cause to search the defendant’s person or seize the item in his pocket. Thus, the dispositive question here, as it was in Dickerson, is whether the officer who conducted the search was acting within the lawful bounds marked by Terry at the time he gained probable cause to believe that the lump in respondent’s pocket was contraband. Dickerson, 508 U.S. at 377, 124 L. Ed. 2d at 347, 113 S. Ct. at 2138. The officer in Dickerson testified as follows concerning the scope of the search he conducted following a Terry stop: " '[A]s I pat-searched the front of his body, I felt a lump, a small lump, in the front pocket. I examined it with my fingers and it slid and it felt to be a lump of crack cocaine in cellophane.’ ” (Dickerson, 508 U.S. at 369, 124 L. Ed. 2d at 341, 113 S. Ct. at 2133.) Regarding this testimony and other facts and findings contained in the State court record, the Dickerson court noted: (1) the officer made no claim that he suspected the object he felt in the defendant’s pocket to be a weapon; (2) the Minnesota Supreme Court closely examined the record and found that the officer’s own testimony belied any notion that he immediately recognized the lump in the defendant’s pocket as crack cocaine; and (3) the officer determined that the lump was contraband only after " 'squeezing, sliding and otherwise manipulating the contents of defendant’s pocket’ — a pocket which the officer already knew contained no weapon.” (Dickerson, 508 U.S. at 378, 124 L. Ed. 2d at 347, 113 S. Ct. at 2138, quoting State v. Dickerson (Minn. 1992), 481 N.W.2d 840, 844.) Although the officer was lawfully in a position to feel the lump in defendant’s pocket, the Supreme Court in Dickerson found the "plain feel search” constitutionally invalid because the identity of the object the officer felt was not immediately apparent to him and he determined it was contraband only after conducting a further search (squeezing, sliding, and manipulating the object), which was not authorized by Terry. Dickerson, 508 U.S. at 378, 124 L. Ed. 2d at 348, 113 S. Ct. at 2139. In contrast to Dickerson, the facts of this case are persuasive that the police officer determined contemporaneously with his pat-down search for weapons that the item in defendant’s pocket was contraband, rather than during a further search after he had already concluded it was not a weapon. The officer had conducted a Terry stop in the first place because of the circumstances indicating the occurrence of a drug deal. He would have been keenly aware of those circumstances when he patted down the defendant. Too, the officer had conducted pat-down searches which revealed a plastic bag containing marijuana on 20 to 30 previous occasions. Officer Cimaglio’s testimony, when considered in its entirety, also indicates that he determined the object was a bag of marijuana as soon as he touched it. On direct examination in defendant’s case, Officer Cimaglio responded that he did not find any weapons on defendant when he patted him down. When asked what else he did after the pat-down, the officer replied: "I — as I padded [sic] him down, I felt a bulge in his left front pocket and also there was several items in his right front pocket.” On cross-examination by the State, Cimaglio testified: "Q. And when you did the pat down on the defendant, what did the items feel like in his front pant’s pocket? A. It was a rolled object, pretty well packed, but able to maneuver, bend its shape. It felt like it was in a plastic bag; and it felt as if it was a material known as cannabis. Q. How many times have you done pat downs before, approximately, where you found a plastic bag containing cannabis? A. Numerous times.” On this occasion Cimaglio further searched only the defendant’s left front pants pocket even though he had also felt objects in the right pocket. I believe the trial court could have reasonably inferred from, collectively, Officer Cimaglio’s testimony, his previous experience, his observations of the situation before him, and his use of the sense of touch that, in the process of satisfying himself that the object he felt was not a weapon, the officer immediately and simultaneously determined it felt like a packet of marijuana. This determination, in turn, together with the other circumstances known to the officer, created the probable cause which permitted him to remove the object from defendant’s pocket. Support for my view may be found in the following quotation in 3 W. LaFave, Search & Seizure § 9.4(c), at 524 (2d ed. 1987): "Assuming the object discovered in the pat-down does not feel like a weapon, this only means that a further search may not be justified under a Terry analysis. There remains the possibility that the feel of the object, together with other suspicious circumstances, will amount to probable cause that the object is contraband or some other item subject to seizure, in which case there may be a further search based upon that probable cause.” (Emphasis added.) 3 W. LaFave, Search & Seizure § 9.4(c), at 524 (2d ed. 1987). Whether probable cause exists is determined not by technical legal rules, but by a commonsense, practical examination of the totality of the circumstances. (Illinois v. Gates (1983), 462 U.S. 213, 238, 76 L. Ed. 2d 527, 548, 103 S. Ct. 2317, 2332; People v. Tisler (1984), 103 Ill. 2d 226, 236.) The totality of the circumstances here justified the trial court’s conclusion that Officer Cimaglio discovered that the item in defendant’s pocket was a packet of marijuana contemporaneously with, rather than subsequent to, a proper pat-down search. See People v. Mitchell (1993), 257 Ill. App. 3d 157. Because I believe the trial court’s conclusion is not clearly erroneous, I would affirm.