This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The Defendant was stopped by police for speeding. During the stop, the officer smelled burnt marijuana and conducted an initial patdown, which revealed no weapons or drugs. After searching the Defendant's vehicle and finding no drugs, a second patdown was conducted, during which methamphetamine was discovered in the Defendant's sock. The Defendant had disclosed the presence of a rifle in the car and a pocketknife on his person (paras 2-5).
Procedural History
- District Court of Lea County: Denied the Defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained during the second patdown (para 7).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the second patdown was illegal as it was not justified by officer safety concerns and was conducted as a pretext to search for drugs. Further contended that any consent given to remove the material from his sock was coerced and not voluntary (paras 7, 19-21).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Asserted that the second patdown was justified due to officer safety concerns, citing the Defendant's nervous and fidgety behavior and the presence of weapons in the vehicle. Also argued that the Defendant consented to the search and that the plain-feel doctrine applied (paras 6, 19, 22).
Legal Issues
- Was the second patdown search of the Defendant lawful under the Fourth Amendment?
- Was the Defendant's consent to remove the material from his sock voluntary?
- Does the plain-feel doctrine justify the seizure of the methamphetamine?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals reversed the denial of the motion to suppress and remanded the case for further proceedings (para 23).
Reasons
Per Sutin J. (Fry and Vigil JJ. concurring):
Legality of the Second Patdown: The Court held that the second patdown was unlawful as it was not justified by specific and articulable facts indicating a threat to officer safety. The initial patdown had already been conducted, and no new facts emerged to suggest an increased danger. The second patdown was deemed a pretext to search for drugs, which is not permissible under the Fourth Amendment (paras 9-18).
Consent: The Court found that the Defendant's consent to remove the material from his sock was not voluntary. The Defendant was detained for over twenty minutes, handcuffed, and subjected to repeated questioning, which created a coercive environment. The State failed to meet its burden of proving that the consent was free from duress or coercion (paras 19-21).
Plain-Feel Doctrine: The Court declined to apply the plain-feel doctrine, noting that it requires a lawful patdown as a prerequisite. Since the second patdown was unlawful, the doctrine could not justify the seizure of the methamphetamine (para 22).
The Court emphasized that protective searches must be limited to ensuring officer safety and cannot be used as a pretext for evidence gathering. It concluded that the evidence obtained during the second patdown must be suppressed (paras 9-23).