{"id":1880,"date":"2008-04-08T09:38:31","date_gmt":"2008-03-14T04:18:07","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2008-03-14T04:18:07","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=1880","title":{"rendered":"Defendant’s actions did not make out “plain feel” exception"},"content":{"rendered":"

The defendant’s patdown revealed capsules in the defendant’s pocket, which could have just as easily been Tylenol or Motrin tablets. Defendant’s slightly evasive actions during the patdown did not give probable cause to believe it was contraband for a search. Cost v. Commonwealth<\/a>, 275 Va. 246, 657 S.E.2d 505 (2008), revg Cost v. Commonwealth, 49 Va. App. 215, 638 S.E.2d 714 (2006):<\/p>\n

Here, the character of the capsules seized from Cost’s pants pocket could not have been immediately apparent to Officer Davis as a result of the pat-down search. Cost’s movements and his failure to respond to the officer’s questions supported a well-educated “hunch,” but were insufficient to establish probable cause required to permit a warrantless seizure of the capsules from inside Cost’s pants pocket. See e.g., Graham v. State<\/em>, 893 S.W.2d 4, 6 (Tex. Ct. App. 1994). Accordingly, we hold that the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the judgment of the circuit court overruling Cost’s motion to suppress the evidence illegally seized from his person under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

In Ohio, a similar case suppressed crack cocaine that had to be manipulated in the pocket to determine what it was. State v. Blandon<\/a>, 2008 Ohio 1064, 2008 Ohio App. LEXIS 922 (7th Dist. March 7, 2008).*<\/p>\n

Ability of other inmates in a jail to see a body search of an incoming inmate did not make out a Fourth Amendment violation. Quansah v. Kern County Jail Commander, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18325 (E.D. Cal. February 25, 2008).*<\/p>\n

Reasonable suspicion developed for defendant’s continued detention from his nervousness and implausible answers, and he consented three times to the search of the car. United States v. Angulo, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18394 (D. Colo. February 25, 2008).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1880","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1880","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1880"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1880\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1880"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1880"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1880"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}