9 North Carolina opinions name it 1 courts 2000–2021 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by North Carolina courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Beveridgegreen2 sentences2021App. 688, 696 , 436 S.E.2d 912, 916 (1993), aff’d per curiam, 336 N.C. 601 , 444 S.E.2d 223 (1994) (declining to apply the plain feel exception where the officer conducted an external frisk and then exceeded the scope of that permissible frisk by asking the defendant to empty the contents of his pockets and where the officer’s testimony did not establish the object was immediately recognizable as contraband during the frisk). 2021App. 688, 696 , 436 S.E.2d 912, 916 (1993), aff’d per curiam, 336 N.C. 601 , 444 S.E.2d 223 (1994) (declining to apply the plain feel exception where the officer conducted an external frisk and then exceeded the scope of that permissible frisk by asking the defendant to empty the contents of his pockets and where the officer’s testimony did not establish the object was immediately recognizable as contraband during the frisk). | 2 | 3 |
State v. Briggsgreen2 sentences2009App. 484, 489 , 536 S.E.2d 858, 861 (2000) (“[I]f after feeling the object, the officer lacks probable cause to believe that the object is contraband without conducting some further search, the ‘immediately apparent’ requirement has not been met and the plain feel doctrine cannot justify the seizure of that object.”). 2008App. 484 , 536 S.E.2d 858 (2000), this Court addressed this "immediately apparent" requirement within the context of the plain feel doctrine and concluded that "the best approach for analyzing the issue is a totality of the circumstances inquiry." State v. Green, 146 N.C. | 1 | 3 |
Minnesota v. Dickersongreen2 sentences2009According to the plain feel doctrine, when conducting a Terry frisk, “[i]f 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 . . . .” Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366, 375 , 124 L. 2009According to the plain feel doctrine, when conducting a Terry frisk, “[i]f 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 . . . .” Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366, 375 , 124 L. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Richmondgreen1 sentence2019App. 475, 481 , 715 S.E.2d 581, 585-86 (2011) (“[U]nder the plain feel doctrine, to conduct a search an officer need only have probable cause to believe the object felt during the pat down was contraband before he seized it, not that he determine the specific controlled substance before taking action. . . . [T]he probable cause determination[ ] involves more of a common-sense determination considering evidence as understood by those versed in the field of law enforcement.”) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Williamsgreen2 sentences2012“According to the plain feel doctrine, when conducting a Terry frisk for weapons, 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.” State v. Williams, 195 N.C. 2012App. 554, 560 , 673 S.E.2d 394, 398 (2009). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Robinsongreen1 sentence2011See id. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Greengreen2 sentences2008App. 484 , 536 S.E.2d 858 (2000), this Court addressed this "immediately apparent" requirement within the context of the plain feel doctrine and concluded that "the best approach for analyzing the issue is a totality of the circumstances inquiry." State v. Green, 146 N.C. 2008App. 702, 707 , 554 S.E.2d 834, 837 (2001). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Wilsongreen1 sentence2000But cf. State v. Wilson, 112 N.C. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Clark v. Velsicol Chemical Corp.
neutral
2 sentences2021App. 688, 696 , 436 S.E.2d 912, 916 (1993), aff’d per curiam, 336 N.C. 601 , 444 S.E.2d 223 (1994) (declining to apply the plain feel exception where the officer conducted an external frisk and then exceeded the scope of that permissible frisk by asking the defendant to empty the contents of his pockets and where the officer’s testimony did not establish the object was immediately recognizable as contraband during the frisk). 2021App. 688, 696 , 436 S.E.2d 912, 916 (1993), aff’d per curiam, 336 N.C. 601 , 444 S.E.2d 223 (1994) (declining to apply the plain feel exception where the officer conducted an external frisk and then exceeded the scope of that permissible frisk by asking the defendant to empty the contents of his pockets and where the officer’s testimony did not establish the object was immediately recognizable as contraband during the frisk). | 2 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Beveridge
neutral
2 sentences2021App. 688, 696 , 436 S.E.2d 912, 916 (1993), aff’d per curiam, 336 N.C. 601 , 444 S.E.2d 223 (1994) (declining to apply the plain feel exception where the officer conducted an external frisk and then exceeded the scope of that permissible frisk by asking the defendant to empty the contents of his pockets and where the officer’s testimony did not establish the object was immediately recognizable as contraband during the frisk). 2021App. 688, 696 , 436 S.E.2d 912, 916 (1993), aff’d per curiam, 336 N.C. 601 , 444 S.E.2d 223 (1994) (declining to apply the plain feel exception where the officer conducted an external frisk and then exceeded the scope of that permissible frisk by asking the defendant to empty the contents of his pockets and where the officer’s testimony did not establish the object was immediately recognizable as contraband during the frisk). | 2 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Streeter
green
1 sentence2011In explaining the “plain feel” doctrine, we have stated that [i]f during “[a] limited weapons search, contraband or evidence of a crime is of necessity exposed, the officer is not required by the Fourth Amendment to disregard such contraband or evidence of crime.” State v. Streeter, 17 N.C. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Terry v. Ohio
green
1 sentence2009Ed. 2d 889 , 88 S. Ct. 1868 (1968), we conclude that the trial court did not apply the correct legal standard in determining whether the officer’s seizure of contraband during the frisk was constitutional under the plain feel doctrine. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
State v. Benjamin
green
1 sentence2000Id. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.