 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Tollefson5/6/2003
was that the police may seize "immediately apparent" non-threatening contraband detected through the sense of touch during a protective pat down search. See id. Dickerson does not apply where, as in this case, an officer enters a suspect's pocket to retrieve what the officer reasonably believes could be a weapon. See Evans, 618 N.E.2d at 170 n.5 ("Dickerson has no relevance to circumstances . . . where personal safety is the reason behind the officer's entering the suspect's pocket."). Because there was evidence in this case that the officer was concerned for her safety and did not know if the object was a weapon, the trial court correctly analyzed the officer's actions under the Terry rationale.
VII.
[ ] After reviewing the record in this case, we conclude there is sufficient competent evidence to support the trial court's findings, the trial court's decision is not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence, and the trial court's decision is consistent with applicable law. Therefore, we affirm the trial court's order denying suppression of evidence and the final criminal judgment.
[ ] Mary Muehlen Maring
William A. Neumann
Dale V. Sandstrom
Carol Ronning Kapsner
Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.
|