plain feel doctrine in New Jersey

2026The seminal Supreme Court case, Minnesota v. Dickerson, established the plain feel doctrine; there, the Court stated: If a police officer lawfully pats down a suspect's outer clothing and feels an object whose contour or mass makes its identity immediately apparent, there has been no invasion of the suspect's privacy beyond that already authorized by the officer's search for weapons; if the object is contraband, its warrantless seizure would be justified by the same practical considerations that inhere in the plain-view context. [ 508 U.S. 366, 375-76 (1993).] The New Jersey Supreme Court, in

2018The Court in Evans applied the plain feel exception to the Statute, recognizing " 'tactile discoveries of contraband' may justify a warrantless search ... if the officer 'feels an object whose contour or mass makes its identity immediately apparent.' " Id. at 138, 193 A.3d 843 (citing Minnesota v. Dickerson , 508 U.S. 366 , 375, 113 S.Ct. 2130 , 124 L.Ed.2d 334 (1993) ).

2018See State v. Toth, 321 N.J.

2017See id. at 628, 630-31; see also State v. Toth, 321 N.J.

2026The seminal Supreme Court case, Minnesota v. Dickerson, established the plain feel doctrine; there, the Court stated: If a police officer lawfully pats down a suspect's outer clothing and feels an object whose contour or mass makes its identity immediately apparent, there has been no invasion of the suspect's privacy beyond that already authorized by the officer's search for weapons; if the object is contraband, its warrantless seizure would be justified by the same practical considerations that inhere in the plain-view context. [ 508 U.S. 366, 375-76 (1993).] The New Jersey Supreme Court, in

2018The Court in Evans applied the plain feel exception to the Statute, recognizing " 'tactile discoveries of contraband' may justify a warrantless search ... if the officer 'feels an object whose contour or mass makes its identity immediately apparent.' " Id. at 138, 193 A.3d 843 (citing Minnesota v. Dickerson , 508 U.S. 366 , 375, 113 S.Ct. 2130 , 124 L.Ed.2d 334 (1993) ).

2017He argues further that even if accepted as an exception to the warrant requirement, the application of a plain feel exception in strip search cases would nullify the protections of the strip search statute because "any time an officer felt what he suspected to be drugs during a pat down, he would automatically be justified in conducting a strip search." Contrary to defendant's assertion, one year after the Supreme Court decided Dickerson, this court adopted the plain touch exception to the warrant requirement, holding: If a police officer lawfully pats down a suspect's outer clothing and feels

2017He argues further that even if accepted as an exception to the warrant requirement, the application of a plain feel exception in strip search cases would nullify the protections of the strip search statute because "any time an officer felt what he suspected to be drugs during a pat down, he would automatically be justified in conducting a strip search." Contrary to defendant's assertion, one year after the Supreme Court decided Dickerson, this court adopted the plain touch exception to the warrant requirement, holding: If a police officer lawfully pats down a suspect's outer clothing and feels

2017The plain feel doctrine applies "when the officer conducting a lawful search 'feels an object whose contour or mass makes its identity immediately apparent.'" Id. at 85 (quoting Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366, 375 , 113 S. Ct. 2130, 2137 , 124 L.

2017Cf. State v. Evans, 449 N.J.

2018Although defendant prevented Lorady from completing the pat down at the side of a busy highway, Lorady felt a hard object and was cognizant of the CI's information that defendant was "known to be armed during the course of these narcotics investigations and the fact that so far the information that was provided to [Lorady] all added up." Moreover, having lawfully arrested defendant, Lorady had "the right and duty to search him for weapons and contraband before placing him in a patrol car." State v. Gibson, 218 N.J. 277, 299 (2014).

2017Ed. 2d at 505 (quoting Wyoming v. Houghton, 526 U.S. 295, 300 , 119 S. Ct. 1297, 1300 , 143 L.

2017Ed. 2d at 505 (quoting Wyoming v. Houghton, 526 U.S. 295, 300 , 119 S. Ct. 1297, 1300 , 143 L.

2017R. 1:36-3; Trinity Cemetery Ass'n v. Twp. of Wall, 170 N.J. 39, 48 (2001). 5 In Evans, we held that the record did not support an application of the plain feel exception to the warrant requirement to justify the strip search of the defendant under N.J.S.A. 2A:161A-1(b).

2017To be sure, the application of the plain feel exception as a gateway to strip searches conjures concerns regarding the nullification of the very protections N.J.S.A. 2A:161A-1 was 7 In Gonzales, supra, 227 N.J. at 90, 95-97 , our Supreme Court reviewed the plain view exception to the warrant requirement under Article I, Paragraph 7 of the New Jersey Constitution, discarded the prior requirement that evidence be discovered inadvertently to conform to federal jurisprudence, id. at 99-100 , and identified the following criteria for its application: "the officer must lawfully be in the area where

2017To be sure, the application of the plain feel exception as a gateway to strip searches conjures concerns regarding the nullification of the very protections N.J.S.A. 2A:161A-1 was 7 In Gonzales, supra, 227 N.J. at 90, 95-97 , our Supreme Court reviewed the plain view exception to the warrant requirement under Article I, Paragraph 7 of the New Jersey Constitution, discarded the prior requirement that evidence be discovered inadvertently to conform to federal jurisprudence, id. at 99-100 , and identified the following criteria for its application: "the officer must lawfully be in the area where

2015State v. Johnson, 171 N.J. 192, 206 (2002) (noting plain view doctrine requires the officer to lawfully be in the viewing area). 11 A-5600-12T3 occupants would have been allowed to return to the car to await rescue by a licensed driver or to retrieve their belongings.