The following is a computer-generated transcription, some grammar and spelling errors may be inherent

Hey guys, it's Anthony Bandiero Here attorney and senior legal instructor for blue to gold law enforcement training, bringing you another roadside chat from the studio. This question comes from an officer in Florida. And he asks, have courts relaxed the manipulation rule? Under Terry pat downs? So what the officers talking about here is a case that's called Minnesota versus Dickerson, US Supreme Court. Basically what happened there were officers patted down Dickerson, they felt an item in his pocket while during the pat down. And they described the path and you know, when they're feeling sad, they described it as manipulating it, feeling it, pinching it, squeezing it, to basically determine whether or not it was drugs, right. And then they felt, you know, that that was a rock like substance. And that combined with all the other circumstances, while the stop was made in the first place, because we thought that drug activity is occurring.
The court, the cops knew that it was, you know, potentially rock cocaine, or at least had probable cause? Don't you want to know it? But you had probable cause? They removed it? Sure enough, they're correct. And we're going to the US Supreme Court. So the US Supreme Court held that in that case, right. The cops manipulation of the item failed to satisfy the playing field doctrine, or the plain touch doctrine, wherever you want to call it. But they did say if while patting somebody down, an officer feels an item that is immediately apparent. Remember that immediately apparent as contraband evidence, fruits or instrumentalities, of a crime and so forth, that they could go into the pocket and seize it. Now, back to the original question, the officer is asking, have courts relaxed this rule? And the answer is no. They're very strict on it. If a cop goes to court, and is asked, at the time that you felt this item in the pocket,
did you believe that it was a weapon or something that could hurt you? And then they in the officer says, No, I knew at that point, that it's not something that can hurt me. Okay. But you continue to feel the item? Yes. And how describe how you felt that item and so forth? Well, I felt that I put my hand in it, you know, I pinched it, I squeezed it. And then I realized that it was marijuana, cocaine, you know, or some kind of criminal act, you know, criminal evidence. At that point, the evidence is likely to be suppressed because the COP is admitting to the court that at the point of manipulation, he knows it's not a weapon. And he's he suspected of being contraband, that's manipulation. Now,
there are two basically, paths, or, you know,
whole things that come from these cases. And let me just kind of share my little best practice here. Cops will give you some wiggle room, when you are feeling an item that you're not sure is a weapon.
They will allow you to manipulate that item to make sure it's not a weapon. So for example, there's a case where a cop field a rolled up bag, it was you know, it was rolled up bag, I guess, like a paper bag or something like that. And it was kind of it was kind of solid, you know, he wasn't sure if there was razor blades in there or some kind of blunt object. So he took the bag out and was determining whether or not it was there was a some kind of weapon in there. And he found drugs instead. And the court actually upheld that. Because he testified that he was still concerned about the weapons he wasn't sure. But you see in Dickerson, where the cop knows it's not a weapon and is still continuing. The manipulation is that make sense? So if you are unsure, it's a weapon courts give you some leeway. If you know it's not a weapon, then you got to move on. Or if it's Amelie apparent to you as contraband, then you recover it. Now, a couple things about this, remember, immediately apparent is only probable cause, okay, it's not certainty. I have patted people down,
thought that it was a pipe in their pocket, pulled it out, it was like a lidar or something or, you know, or something else, right.
That's okay, that I did not violate the Constitution by because I had a fair probability based off the tiny circumstances that what the utmost feeling was, you know, paraphernalia and so forth. Most of the time, I'm right, but so
Sometimes I was wrong. The other thing is don't forget the totality of the circumstances. Don't forget that the reason why you detain this person comes into play if you believe he's involved in narcotics, don't forget that if he appears to be an active drug user, or has recent drug history, leaves a known drug house is abnormally nervous, deceptive, evasive, don't forget that those things also contribute to probable cause. Right? It's not solely based off of what you feel at that particular time. Does that make sense? It's important because a lot of cops will just talk about how the item felt, but they leave out all this other stuff about they thought they potentially, you know, maybe saw hand to hand transaction. It's a high drug neighborhood that they know this guy from previous encounters. And I'm thinking to myself, that is part of the probable cause. Right? So throw that in there. You guys like what I'm doing? If you if you want me to keep doing it, three favors. hit like or comment. Please hit subscribe. We're trying to get 10,000 users by next couple of months, New Year new subscribers. And finally guys share with their friends. I'm doing these free YouTube videos and I do webinars every single week that are free to help train cops. That's my mission in life. Please help me do that. Alright, until next time, my friends stay safe.
When it comes to law enforcement training, we are the gold standard. Visit blue to gold.com or call 888-579-7796 to learn more about our training books and free webinars. Also, don't forget to like, subscribe and share this channel.