plain feel doctrine in Alabama

2000"Because the Supreme Court in Dickerson made it clear that the plain-feel doctrine is a corollary to the plain-view exception — where probable cause is required (see, e.g., Arizona v. Hicks , 480 U.S. 321 , 107 S.Ct. 1149 , 94 L.Ed.2d 347 (1987)) — this court has recognized that the phrase `immediately apparent,' as it is used in Dickerson , is the equivalent of `probable cause.' See Allen v. State , 689 So.2d 212 , 215-17 (Ala.Cr.App. 1996).

2000"Because the Supreme Court in Dickerson made it clear that the plain-feel doctrine is a corollary to the plain-view exception — where probable cause is required (see, e.g., Arizona v. Hicks , 480 U.S. 321 , 107 S.Ct. 1149 , 94 L.Ed.2d 347 (1987)) — this court has recognized that the phrase `immediately apparent,' as it is used in Dickerson , is the equivalent of `probable cause.' See Allen v. State , 689 So.2d 212 , 215-17 (Ala.Cr.App. 1996).

2000See Huffman v. State, 651 So.2d 78 (Ala.Crim.App.1994) (holding that an officer had not exceeded the scope of Terry when, during a patdown, he recognized without any further examination that he felt a lump that had the configuration of a crack-cocaine rock); and Allen v. State, 689 So.2d 212 (Ala.Crim.App.1995) (holding *90 that an officer had not exceeded the scope of Terry when he retrieved an envelope of marijuana that he simultaneously realized was not a weapon but recognized as an envelope containing marijuana). [1] Dickerson establishes three prerequisites for a police officer's seizure

2000See Huffman v. State , 651 So.2d 78 (Ala.Crim.App. 1994) (holding that an officer had not exceeded the scope of Terry when, during a patdown, he recognized without any further examination that he felt a lump that had the configuration of a crack-cocaine rock); and Allen v. State , 689 So.2d 212 (Ala.Crim.App. 1995) (holding *Page 90 that an officer had not exceeded the scope of Terry when he retrieved an envelope of marijuana that he simultaneously realized was not a weapon but recognized as an envelope containing marijuana). 1 Dickerson establishes three prerequisites for a police officer's s

2013“It is well established that under certain circumstances the police may seize evidence in plain view without a warrant.” Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321, 326 , 107 S.Ct. 1149 , 94 L.Ed.2d 347 (1987), citing Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 408 U.S. 443 , 465, 91 S.Ct. 2022 , 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971). “[T]he United States Supreme Court has identified three requirements for application of the plain view doctrine, which are 1) that the officer did not violate the Fourth Amendment in arriving at the place from which the evidence could be plainly viewed, 2) that the incriminating character of the evidence mu

2013“It is well established that under certain circumstances the police may seize evidence in plain view without a warrant.” Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321, 326 , 107 S.Ct. 1149 , 94 L.Ed.2d 347 (1987), citing Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 408 U.S. 443 , 465, 91 S.Ct. 2022 , 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971). “[T]he United States Supreme Court has identified three requirements for application of the plain view doctrine, which are 1) that the officer did not violate the Fourth Amendment in arriving at the place from which the evidence could be plainly viewed, 2) that the incriminating character of the evidence mu

2013“It is well established that under certain circumstances the police may seize evidence in plain view without a warrant.” Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321, 326 , 107 S.Ct. 1149 , 94 L.Ed.2d 347 (1987), citing Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 408 U.S. 443 , 465, 91 S.Ct. 2022 , 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971). “[T]he United States Supreme Court has identified three requirements for application of the plain view doctrine, which are 1) that the officer did not violate the Fourth Amendment in arriving at the place from which the evidence could be plainly viewed, 2) that the incriminating character of the evidence mu

2013“It is well established that under certain circumstances the police may seize evidence in plain view without a warrant.” Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321, 326 , 107 S.Ct. 1149 , 94 L.Ed.2d 347 (1987), citing Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 408 U.S. 443 , 465, 91 S.Ct. 2022 , 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971). “[T]he United States Supreme Court has identified three requirements for application of the plain view doctrine, which are 1) that the officer did not violate the Fourth Amendment in arriving at the place from which the evidence could be plainly viewed, 2) that the incriminating character of the evidence mu

2000See United States v. Gibson, 19 F.3d 1449 (D.C.Cir.1994) ("flat hard object" containing cocaine was seized because it did not correspond with anything officer expected to find in pants pocket; seizure held improper); United States v. Mitchell, 832 F.Supp. 1073 (N.D.Miss.1993) (court could not accept officers' testimony that contraband was "immediately apparent" upon officers' patting defendant's outer clothing; the six small plastic bags of crack cocaine had been placed in a white athletic sock that was in a brown paper sack in defendant's pocket); State v. Brown, 773 So.2d 742 (La.App. 2000)

2000See United States v. Gibson, 19 F.3d 1449 (D.C.Cir.1994) ("flat hard object" containing cocaine was seized because it did not correspond with anything officer expected to find in pants pocket; seizure held improper); United States v. Mitchell, 832 F.Supp. 1073 (N.D.Miss.1993) (court could not accept officers' testimony that contraband was "immediately apparent" upon officers' patting defendant's outer clothing; the six small plastic bags of crack cocaine had been placed in a white athletic sock that was in a brown paper sack in defendant's pocket); State v. Brown, 773 So.2d 742 (La.App. 2000)

2000For example, in People v. Champion, 452 Mich. 92 , 549 N.W.2d 849 (1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1081 , 117 S.Ct. 747 (1997), a case cited in both the majority opinion and Chief Justice Hooper's dissent, the Michigan Supreme Court held that an officer was justified in seizing a pill bottle that he felt in the defendant's groin area during a Terry frisk.

2000For example, in People v. Champion , 452 Mich. 92 , 549 N.W.2d 849 (1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1081 , 117 S.Ct. 747 (1997), a case cited in both the majority opinion and Chief Justice Hooper's dissent, the Michigan Supreme Court held that an officer was justified in seizing a pill bottle that he felt in the defendant's groin area during a Terry frisk.

2000For example, in People v. Champion, 452 Mich. 92 , 549 N.W.2d 849 (1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1081 , 117 S.Ct. 747 (1997), a case cited in both the majority opinion and Chief Justice Hooper's dissent, the Michigan Supreme Court held that an officer was justified in seizing a pill bottle that he felt in the defendant's groin area during a Terry frisk.

2000For example, in People v. Champion , 452 Mich. 92 , 549 N.W.2d 849 (1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1081 , 117 S.Ct. 747 (1997), a case cited in both the majority opinion and Chief Justice Hooper's dissent, the Michigan Supreme Court held that an officer was justified in seizing a pill bottle that he felt in the defendant's groin area during a Terry frisk.

2000See United States v. Gibson, 19 F.3d 1449 (D.C.Cir.1994) ("flat hard object" containing cocaine was seized because it did not correspond with anything officer expected to find in pants pocket; seizure held improper); United States v. Mitchell, 832 F.Supp. 1073 (N.D.Miss.1993) (court could not accept officers' testimony that contraband was "immediately apparent" upon officers' patting defendant's outer clothing; the six small plastic bags of crack cocaine had been placed in a white athletic sock that was in a brown paper sack in defendant's pocket); State v. Brown, 773 So.2d 742 (La.App. 2000)

2000See United States v. Gibson, 19 F.3d 1449 (D.C.Cir.1994) ("flat hard object" containing cocaine was seized because it did not correspond with anything officer expected to find in pants pocket; seizure held improper); United States v. Mitchell, 832 F.Supp. 1073 (N.D.Miss.1993) (court could not accept officers' testimony that contraband was "immediately apparent" upon officers' patting defendant's outer clothing; the six small plastic bags of crack cocaine had been placed in a white athletic sock that was in a brown paper sack in defendant's pocket); State v. Brown, 773 So.2d 742 (La.App. 2000)

2000See United States v. Gibson, 19 F.3d 1449 (D.C.Cir.1994) ("flat hard object" containing cocaine was seized because it did not correspond with anything officer expected to find in pants pocket; seizure held improper); United States v. Mitchell, 832 F.Supp. 1073 (N.D.Miss.1993) (court could not accept officers' testimony that contraband was "immediately apparent" upon officers' patting defendant's outer clothing; the six small plastic bags of crack cocaine had been placed in a white athletic sock that was in a brown paper sack in defendant's pocket); State v. Brown, 773 So.2d 742 (La.App. 2000)

2000See United States v. Gibson, 19 F.3d 1449 (D.C.Cir.1994) ("flat hard object" containing cocaine was seized because it did not correspond with anything officer expected to find in pants pocket; seizure held improper); United States v. Mitchell, 832 F.Supp. 1073 (N.D.Miss.1993) (court could not accept officers' testimony that contraband was "immediately apparent" upon officers' patting defendant's outer clothing; the six small plastic bags of crack cocaine had been placed in a white athletic sock that was in a brown paper sack in defendant's pocket); State v. Brown, 773 So.2d 742 (La.App. 2000)

2000For example, in People v. Champion , 452 Mich. 92 , 549 N.W.2d 849 (1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1081 , 117 S.Ct. 747 (1997), a case cited in both the majority opinion and Chief Justice Hooper's dissent, the Michigan Supreme Court held that an officer was justified in seizing a pill bottle that he felt in the defendant's groin area during a Terry frisk.

2000For example, in People v. Champion , 452 Mich. 92 , 549 N.W.2d 849 (1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1081 , 117 S.Ct. 747 (1997), a case cited in both the majority opinion and Chief Justice Hooper's dissent, the Michigan Supreme Court held that an officer was justified in seizing a pill bottle that he felt in the defendant's groin area during a Terry frisk.

2000See United States v. Gibson, 19 F.3d 1449 (D.C.Cir.1994) ("flat hard object" containing cocaine was seized because it did not correspond with anything officer expected to find in pants pocket; seizure held improper); United States v. Mitchell, 832 F.Supp. 1073 (N.D.Miss.1993) (court could not accept officers' testimony that contraband was "immediately apparent" upon officers' patting defendant's outer clothing; the six small plastic bags of crack cocaine had been placed in a white athletic sock that was in a brown paper sack in defendant's pocket); State v. Brown, 773 So.2d 742 (La.App. 2000)

2000See United States v. Gibson, 19 F.3d 1449 (D.C.Cir.1994) ("flat hard object" containing cocaine was seized because it did not correspond with anything officer expected to find in pants pocket; seizure held improper); United States v. Mitchell, 832 F.Supp. 1073 (N.D.Miss.1993) (court could not accept officers' testimony that contraband was "immediately apparent" upon officers' patting defendant's outer clothing; the six small plastic bags of crack cocaine had been placed in a white athletic sock that was in a brown paper sack in defendant's pocket); State v. Brown, 773 So.2d 742 (La.App. 2000)

2000The Supreme Court of Tennessee made a similar observation in State v. Bridges, 963 S.W.2d 487 (Tenn.1997): [3] "[A] majority of this Court has determined that Officer Blackwell did not have probable cause to believe that the [pill bottle] he felt was contraband, and that he did not have probable cause to believe that the bottle contained contraband.

2000The Supreme Court of Tennessee made a similar observation in State v. Bridges , 963 S.W.2d 487 (Tenn. 1997): 3 "[A] majority of this Court has determined that Officer Blackwell did not have probable cause to believe that the [pill bottle] he felt was contraband, and that he did not have probable cause to believe that the bottle contained contraband.

2000See United States v. Gibson, 19 F.3d 1449 (D.C.Cir.1994) ("flat hard object" containing cocaine was seized because it did not correspond with anything officer expected to find in pants pocket; seizure held improper); United States v. Mitchell, 832 F.Supp. 1073 (N.D.Miss.1993) (court could not accept officers' testimony that contraband was "immediately apparent" upon officers' patting defendant's outer clothing; the six small plastic bags of crack cocaine had been placed in a white athletic sock that was in a brown paper sack in defendant's pocket); State v. Brown, 773 So.2d 742 (La.App. 2000)