State v. Price, 2013 Ohio 2020

Price was arrested after a stop for a stop-sign violation on Finley Ave; officer observed him reach toward his waistband twice; gelcaps in a baggie were found near the waistband.
Area had high prostitution and gun-call activity; officer believed Price might be armed and dangerous.
Price exited the vehicle; officer restrained him and felt the waistband, detecting a baggie with gelcaps that he believed contained heroin.
Inventory search of the vehicle yielded a green bag with a spoon and syringes.
Price was charged with possession of heroin and drug paraphernalia; suppression motion denied; he pled no contest to heroin and received community-control sanctions.
On appeal, Price challenges the denial of his motion to suppress, arguing the pat-down was improper and the contraband was not immediately apparent.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the pat-down/search of the waistband was permissible as a protective frisk	Price; pat-down exceeded outer clothing	Price; no proper pat-down limited to outer clothing	Affirmed; pat-down permissible for weapons under Terry framework
Whether the gelcaps were immediately apparent contraband under the plain feel doctrine	Saunders did not testify the item was immediately contraband	Gelcaps linked to heroin; officer immediately believed contraband	Affirmed; gelcaps immediately apparent contraband

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (established stop-and-frisk framework)
Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996) (reasonable traffic stop autonomy; pretext allowed)
Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (1977) (safety-related exit from vehicle during lawful stop)
State v. Evans, 67 Ohio St.3d 405 (1993) (limits on pat-downs; plain-feel doctrine)
Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (1993) (plain-feel requires immediately apparent contraband)
State v. Phillips, 155 Ohio App.3d 149 (2003) (Ohio applying plain-feel/conduct evidence rules)
State v. Olden, 2010-Ohio-215 (2010) (appellate review of suppression findings)