State v. Musalf, 380 P.3d 1087

Officers stopped an older red car after reports of gasoline theft; driver (Klamroth) and passengers had histories of traffic/drug contacts. Defendant was a rear-seat passenger.
Officer Ward observed furtive movements by defendant and a white powdery residue in the backseat; Ward suspected drugs and possible weapons.
Officers asked defendant for consent to search; recordings and testimony show defendant consented to a patdown ("You can pat me down… I'm not under arrest") but initially declined a full search.
During a consensual patdown Ward felt a "hard object" in defendant’s pocket, reached into the pocket, removed a small clear plastic container with crystal powder (later identified as methamphetamine), and arrested defendant.
Defendant moved to suppress the evidence as the pocket search exceeded consent and was not justified by officer-safety; trial court denied the motion and convicted defendant. The Court of Appeals reversed.

Issue	State's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was consent voluntary?	Consent was voluntary under totality of circumstances; no coercion.	Consent was not proven voluntary with required specificity.	Voluntary: court found consent to a patdown was voluntary.
Did consent extend to interior of pockets?	Officers characterized defendant as consenting to "a search"; scope included pockets.	Consent was only to a patdown (external search); interior-pocket search exceeded consent.	Consent limited to patdown; pocket intrusion exceeded scope.
Was pocket intrusion justified by officer-safety?	Furtive movements, powder, company of known drug users, and a hard object justified removal for safety.	No specific, articulable facts tied to defendant indicated an immediate risk of serious harm.	Not justified: officer-safety exception did not authorize entry into pocket.
Was suppression error harmless?	Evidence was sufficient; error harmless.	Evidence was essential; error affected outcome.	Not harmless: suppressed evidence was essential; conviction reversed and remanded.

State v. Rudder, 347 Or 14 (2009) (opening pockets is more intrusive than a patdown and normally occurs incident to lawful arrest)
State v. Miglavs, 337 Or 1 (2004) (defines "patdown" as external patting of outer clothing)
State v. Bates, 304 Or 519 (1987) (officer-safety exception allows reasonable steps when officer develops reasonable suspicion of immediate threat)
State v. Davenport, 272 Or App 725 (2015) (patdown usually suffices; further intrusion requires specific, articulable suspicion of serious threat)
State v. Jacobsen, 142 Or App 341 (1996) (scope of consent assessed by objective-reasonableness and content of officer-defendant interchange)
State v. Paulson, 313 Or 346 (1992) (consent as exception to warrant requirement when voluntarily given)
State v. Warner, 284 Or 147 (1978) (appellate review requires knowing exact words officers used when requesting consent)
State v. Jepson, 254 Or App 290 (2012) (voluntariness of consent reviewed independently under totality of circumstances)