plain feel doctrine in Ohio

2019“Under the plain-feel doctrine, an officer conducting a pat-down for weapons may lawfully seize an object if he [or she] has probable cause to believe that the item is contraband.” State v. Lawson, 180 Ohio App.3d 516 , 2009-Ohio-62 , 906 N.E.2d 443, ¶ 25 (2d Dist.), citing Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366, 375 , 113 S.Ct. 2130 , 124 L.Ed.2d 334 (1993) and State v. Phillips, 155 Ohio App.3d 149 , 799 N.E.2d 653 , 2003-Ohio-5742, ¶ 41-42 .

2019“Under the plain-feel doctrine, an officer conducting a pat-down for weapons may lawfully seize an object if he [or she] has probable cause to believe that the item is contraband.” State v. Lawson, 180 Ohio App.3d 516 , 2009-Ohio-62 , 906 N.E.2d 443, ¶ 25 (2d Dist.), citing Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366, 375 , 113 S.Ct. 2130 , 124 L.Ed.2d 334 (1993) and State v. Phillips, 155 Ohio App.3d 149 , 799 N.E.2d 653 , 2003-Ohio-5742, ¶ 41-42 .

2025As a reviewing court, we must accept as true the trial court’s factual findings if they are supported by competent, credible evidence, and we must “then independently determine, without deference to the conclusion of the trial court, whether the facts satisfy the applicable legal standard.” Id. {¶8} The United States Supreme Court spelled out the plain-feel doctrine in Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (1993).

2025United States v. Pacheco, 841 F.3d 384, 395 (6th Cir. 2016) (approving the seizure of contraband where a police officer, during a pat-down search, “[c]ombin[ed] his sight and his touch with his training and experience” to conclude within seconds that an item he felt was probably brick cocaine); State v. Jones, 2002-Ohio-1109 (9th Dist.), quoting Dickerson at 375 (“The plain feel exception to the warrant requirement allows the state to use evidence seized during a Terry search if the police officer, due to his experience arresting drug offenders, feels contraband whose contour or mass makes its

2017State v. Milhouse, 133 Ohio App.3d 527, 530 , 728 N.E.2d 1123 (1st Dist.1999); see State v. Andrews, 57 Ohio St.3d 86, 89 , 565 N.E.2d 1271 (1991). 5 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS {¶14} If, during the course of a Terry pat-down search of a subject’s clothing for weapons, “a police officer feels an object whose contour or mass makes its incriminating character as contraband immediately apparent, and the officer has a lawful right of access to the object, the officer is entitled to seize the object” under the plain-feel doctrine.

2017State v. Milhouse, 133 Ohio App.3d 527, 530 , 728 N.E.2d 1123 (1st Dist.1999); see State v. Andrews, 57 Ohio St.3d 86, 89 , 565 N.E.2d 1271 (1991). 5 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS {¶14} If, during the course of a Terry pat-down search of a subject’s clothing for weapons, “a police officer feels an object whose contour or mass makes its incriminating character as contraband immediately apparent, and the officer has a lawful right of access to the object, the officer is entitled to seize the object” under the plain-feel doctrine.

2023In addition to finding Appellant’s initial statement was part of an onsite investigation before Miranda was triggered, the trial court also applied the plain feel doctrine and found it immediately apparent to the deputy that the bulge in Appellant’s pants was drugs. {¶29} A Terry frisk “must be limited to that which is necessary for the discovery of weapons which might be used to harm the officer or others nearby * * *.” Terry, 392 U.S. at 26 .

2009He further argues that the trial court erred in applying the plain-feel doctrine to justify the seizure of the cocaine. {¶ 24} Because a frisk under Terry is justified “solely by ‘the protection of the police officer or others nearby, * * * it must therefore be confined in scope to an intrusion reasonably designed to discover guns, knives, clubs, or other hidden instruments for the assault of the police officer.’ ” State v. Woodward (Feb. 22, 2002), Montgomery App. No. 18869, 2002 WL 272602 , quoting Terry, 392 U.S. at 29 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 . “ ‘The purpose of this limited search

2021"Under Terry and its progeny, the police may search only for weapons when conducting a pat down of the suspect." State v. Evans, 67 Ohio St.3d 405, 414 (1993). "'The purpose of this limited search is not to discover evidence of crime, but to allow the officer to pursue [the officer's] investigation without fear of violence * * *.'" Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366, 373 , 113 S.Ct. 2130 (1993), quoting Adams v. - 12 - Warren CA2020-11-076 Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 146 , 92 S.Ct. 1921 (1972). "[O]nce the officer determines from his sense of touch that an object is not a weapon, the pat-down fr

2021"Under Terry and its progeny, the police may search only for weapons when conducting a pat down of the suspect." State v. Evans, 67 Ohio St.3d 405, 414 (1993). "'The purpose of this limited search is not to discover evidence of crime, but to allow the officer to pursue [the officer's] investigation without fear of violence * * *.'" Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366, 373 , 113 S.Ct. 2130 (1993), quoting Adams v. - 12 - Warren CA2020-11-076 Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 146 , 92 S.Ct. 1921 (1972). "[O]nce the officer determines from his sense of touch that an object is not a weapon, the pat-down fr

2024For this reason, “a Terry search must ‘be confined in scope to an intrusion reasonably -8- Case No. 6-24-03 designed to discover guns, knives, clubs, or other hidden instruments for the assault of the police officer.’” State v. Nolen, 2020-Ohio-118, ¶ 35 (4th Dist.), quoting Terry at 29 . {¶16} However, if a police officer is conducting a lawful weapons pat down and detects an object that has features making its criminal character “immediately apparent,” the contraband may be seized without a warrant pursuant to the plain feel doctrine.

2020Scioto No. 19CA3873, 2020-Ohio-118, ¶ 40 , quoting State v. Williams, 4th Dist.

2020See Robinson, 2012-Ohio-2428, at ¶ 19 .

2013Robinson, 2012-Ohio-2428, at ¶ 19 , citing Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366, 375-376 (1993). {¶16} The record is a bit unclear as to how the money was discovered in Farrey’s pocket.

2012See State v. Groves, 156 Ohio App.3d 205 , 2004-Ohio-662, ¶ 44 (2d Dist.2004) (without any testimony indicating that officers had a reasonable belief that the item felt was contraband or a weapon, search within sock not justified under Terry and the plain feel doctrine), and see State v. Morton, 9th Dist.

2012See State v. Groves, 156 Ohio App.3d 205 , 2004-Ohio-662, ¶ 44 (2d Dist.2004) (without any testimony indicating that officers had a reasonable belief that the item felt was contraband or a weapon, search within sock not justified under Terry and the plain feel doctrine), and see State v. Morton, 9th Dist.

2025United States v. Pacheco, 841 F.3d 384, 395 (6th Cir. 2016) (approving the seizure of contraband where a police officer, during a pat-down search, “[c]ombin[ed] his sight and his touch with his training and experience” to conclude within seconds that an item he felt was probably brick cocaine); State v. Jones, 2002-Ohio-1109 (9th Dist.), quoting Dickerson at 375 (“The plain feel exception to the warrant requirement allows the state to use evidence seized during a Terry search if the police officer, due to his experience arresting drug offenders, feels contraband whose contour or mass makes its

2025United States v. Pacheco, 841 F.3d 384, 395 (6th Cir. 2016) (approving the seizure of contraband where a police officer, during a pat-down search, “[c]ombin[ed] his sight and his touch with his training and experience” to conclude within seconds that an item he felt was probably brick cocaine); State v. Jones, 2002-Ohio-1109 (9th Dist.), quoting Dickerson at 375 (“The plain feel exception to the warrant requirement allows the state to use evidence seized during a Terry search if the police officer, due to his experience arresting drug offenders, feels contraband whose contour or mass makes its

2019“Under the plain-feel doctrine, an officer conducting a pat-down for weapons may lawfully seize an object if he [or she] has probable cause to believe that the item is contraband.” State v. Lawson, 180 Ohio App.3d 516 , 2009-Ohio-62 , 906 N.E.2d 443, ¶ 25 (2d Dist.), citing Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366, 375 , 113 S.Ct. 2130 , 124 L.Ed.2d 334 (1993) and State v. Phillips, 155 Ohio App.3d 149 , 799 N.E.2d 653 , 2003-Ohio-5742, ¶ 41-42 .

2019“Under the plain-feel doctrine, an officer conducting a pat-down for weapons may lawfully seize an object if he [or she] has probable cause to believe that the item is contraband.” State v. Lawson, 180 Ohio App.3d 516 , 2009-Ohio-62 , 906 N.E.2d 443, ¶ 25 (2d Dist.), citing Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366, 375 , 113 S.Ct. 2130 , 124 L.Ed.2d 334 (1993) and State v. Phillips, 155 Ohio App.3d 149 , 799 N.E.2d 653 , 2003-Ohio-5742, ¶ 41-42 .

2014Montgomery No. 20255, 2004-Ohio-4695, ¶ 59-70 (finding no probable cause under the plain feel doctrine where an officer testified that he felt a hard, bumpy object in defendant’s pocket, but no plastic baggie, and that he believed it to be crack cocaine but did not explain why). {¶ 33} Here, if Deputy Haas had testified that she relied on her past training and experience in identifying the object in Gorby’s skirt, that testimony, combined with: (1) Haas’s testimony that she recognized it was contraband; (2) the fact that Haas felt a large, lumpy object wrapped in cellophane, which was known by

2012“If, however, the police lack probable cause to believe that an object in plain view is contraband without conducting some further search of the object — i.e., if ‘its incriminating character is not ‘immediately apparent,’ — the plain-view doctrine cannot justify its seizure.” United States v. Walker, 181 F.3d 774, 779 (6th Cir.1999). {¶12} Terry has been expanded to include allowable discovery and confiscation of contraband other than weapons under the plain feel doctrine “[i]f a police officer lawfully pats down a suspect’s outer clothing and feels an object whose contour or mass makes its i

2012See Maumee v. Weisner, 87 Ohio St.3d 295, 297 (1999) (“Generally, at a suppression hearing, the state bears the burden of proving that a warrantless search or seizure meets Fourth Amendment standards of reasonableness.”) {¶21} However, the State responds that the search of Robinson’s person was consensual.

2011See, e.g., Katz v. United States (1967), 389 U.S. 347, 357 , 88 S.Ct. 507 , 19 L.Ed.2d 576 ; State v. Andrews (1991), 57 Ohio St.3d 86, 87, fn 1 . {¶ 13} In overruling the motion, the court discussed, but specifically did not make factual findings, whether there was a reasonable, articulable suspicion to justify the pat down or whether the seizure resulted from the plain feel doctrine.

2011See, e.g., Katz v. United States (1967), 389 U.S. 347, 357 , 88 S.Ct. 507 , 19 L.Ed.2d 576 ; State v. Andrews (1991), 57 Ohio St.3d 86, 87, fn 1 . {¶ 13} In overruling the motion, the court discussed, but specifically did not make factual findings, whether there was a reasonable, articulable suspicion to justify the pat down or whether the seizure resulted from the plain feel doctrine.

2008See State v. Woods (1996), 113 Ohio App.3d 240 , 244 , 680 N.E.2d 729 , citing Halczyszak , supra, and extending its analysis to the "plain feel" context ("In the context of the plain view exception to the warrant requirement, the requirement that seizability be immediately apparent is satisfied if the officer has probable cause to associate an object with criminal activity. (citations omitted).

2008See State v. Woods (1996), 113 Ohio App.3d 240 , 244 , 680 N.E.2d 729 , citing Halczyszak , supra, and extending its analysis to the "plain feel" context ("In the context of the plain view exception to the warrant requirement, the requirement that seizability be immediately apparent is satisfied if the officer has probable cause to associate an object with criminal activity. (citations omitted).

2008See State v. Bey , Cuyahoga App. No. 86234, 2005-Ohio-5842 .

2008See State v. Pullen , Montgomery App. Nos. 22022, 22038, 2008-Ohio-2894 , ¶ 34 (officer's testimony that he "believed" the item to be crack cocaine is entirely consistent with his having had probable cause for that belief). {¶ 18} Appellant next argues that the trial court's findings of fact are not supported by competent, credible evidence because there were contradictions in testimony from the *Page 5 suppression hearing and the preliminary hearing. {¶ 19} The record indicates that only one officer testified at the preliminary hearing.