Shoes can be searched in a search incident

Search incident could extend to defendant’s shoes under United States v. Edwards. State v. Pinkelton, 2008 Ohio 980, 2008 Ohio App. LEXIS 837 (6th Dist. March 7, 2008).

Feeling 17 bags of crack in defendant’s pocket was not justified under plain feel. Defendant was lawfully stopped because he matched the description of a robbery suspect and was found in the area. The initial patdown was valid, but the plain feel was not. State v. Tucker, 2008 Ohio 963, 2008 Ohio App. LEXIS 820 (8th Dist. March 6, 2008)*:

[*P17] However, in order to justify the seizure of the drugs, the State had to present some evidence that its incriminating nature was “immediately apparent” to the searching officer. There is no such evidence. The officer simply testified that “as we were searching [defendant] we found 17 bags of rock crack cocaine, and we found a bundle of plastic baggies in his right rear pocket.” This is insufficient to satisfy the plain feel exception. See State v. Bey, Cuyahoga App. No. 86234, 2005 Ohio 5842. Contrary to the State’s assertion, the record reflects that defendant was not under arrest at the time the officers conducted the patdown search for weapons. Accordingly, the seizure cannot be justified as being a search incident to a lawful arrest. The second assignment of error is sustained.

Defense counsel was not ineffective for not filing a motion to suppress that was [so frivilous that it was] bound to fail because of lack of standing. Defendant was on the property to make drugs, and that was his only connection. Lint v. State, 145 Idaho 472, 180 P.3d 511 (App. 2008).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.