State v. Byrd, 2012 Ohio 2659

Byrd was charged with possession of crack cocaine and moved to suppress; trial court overruled; Byrd pled no contest and was sentenced to community control.
Appeal challenges the denial of suppression, arguing the pat-down was unjustified or too broad.
Officers stopped Byrd for a jaywalking violation on Martz Avenue during a late-night shift pattern focused on burglaries and drug activity areas.
Byrd admitted in a non-custodial exchange that he possessed marijuana in his pocket, which officers retrieved.
While seizing the marijuana, the officer felt two rock-like objects; not immediately identified as weapons, leading to a pat-down.
The pat-down yielded crack cocaine; trial court found the pat-down justified by Byrd’s gang affiliation and location, which the appellate court later reverses.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the pat-down for weapons justified under Terry?	Byrd		Not justified; pat-down invalid
Did plain-feel seizure of crack cocaine comply with Fourth Amendment?	Byrd		Plain-feel seizure not applicable here

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (U.S. Supreme Court 1968) (basis for stop and frisk under reasonable suspicion)
State v. Evans, 67 Ohio St.3d 405 (Ohio 1993) (limited search for weapons during a detention)
Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (U.S. Supreme Court 1993) (plain-feel seizure requires immediate incriminating nature)
State v. Molette, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 19694 (Ohio 2003) (limits on manipulating objects during plain feel)
State v. Martin, 2004-Ohio-2738 (Ohio 2004) (reasonable suspicion standard in Ohio)