State v. Hall, 2012 Ohio 4155

Officer Mazur observed Hall shove an unidentified object into Hall's right boot during a March 4, 2010 traffic stop.
Hall exited the vehicle; a plastic bag appeared to protrude from Hall's boot and a pat-down for weapons occurred.
Mazur recovered a plastic bag containing crack cocaine and found $530 in cash on Hall before formal rights were read.
Hall was charged with drug trafficking, possession, and criminal tools, and moved to suppress evidence.
The trial court denied the suppression motion; Hall pled no contest; the court of appeals reviewed the ruling de novo on law and fact so as to determine the legality of the stop and search.
The court affirmed, sustaining the admissibility of the bag and the seizure under plain-view/plain-feel analysis under Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plain view applies given the bag’s incriminating nature.	Hall argues plain view failed because incriminating character was not immediately apparent.	Hall contends the bag’s incriminating nature was not immediately apparent and thus not plainly viewable.	Plain view satisfied; bag immediately incriminating given officer observation and context.
Whether plain feel allowed seizure during pat-down.	Hall challenges the scope of pat-down; argues it exceeded plain feel.	Hall asserts the bulge was not clearly identifiable as contraband or weapon, so seizure was improper.	Pat-down limited to weapons; the bulge was identifiable as contraband; seizure upheld.
Whether the pat-down for weapons was justified by reasonable suspicion.	State contends there was reasonable suspicion Hall concealed a weapon.	Hall argues the suspicion was not sufficiently particularized.	Reasonable suspicion existed; pat-down for weapons justified.
Whether the overall search was within the scope of Terry and related exceptions.	State relies on plain-view/feel and Terry scope to justify seizure.	Hall argues the search extended beyond lawful scope.	Search within proper Terry framework and related plain-view/plain-feel standards.

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (establishes stop-and-frisk for weapons with reasonable suspicion)
Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323 (2009) (upholds limited pat-down during traffic stops for weapons)
United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (2002) (totality of circumstances; reasonable suspicion standard)
United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411 (1981) (particularized and objective basis for suspicion)
Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U.S. 91 (1990) (privacy protections; warrant requirement principles)
Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (1993) (plain view exception requires probable cause; immediate appearance when incriminating)
State v. Seibert, 2005-Ohio-275 (5th Dist.) (plain view/inspection standards; immediacy of incriminating nature)
State v. Huffman, 2010-Ohio-5116 (8th Dist.) (plain feel doctrine; discovery of contraband during pat-down)
State v. Jones, 2002-Ohio-4681 (2d Dist.) (nonweapon item may be seized when its incriminating nature is evident)
State v. Hunter, 98 Ohio App.3d 632 (1994) (recognizes plastic bag as potentially incriminating based on context)
State v. Mullins, 2008-Ohio-3516 (12th Dist.) (plastic/contraband identification during pat-down)
State v. Eatmon, 2010-Ohio-5092 (5th Dist.) (limits on plain feel when not a weapon)
State v. Cartledge, 76 Ohio App.3d 145 (1991) (limits on evidence obtained from an unlawful search)
State v. Jones, 2002-Ohio-4681 (2d Dist.) (probable cause for contraband in plain view)