United States v. Travis Pope, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 14612

Pope was approached after a passenger was detained at a forest gathering, and the officer suspected Pope of marijuana use.
Pope admitted marijuana consumption and was asked to empty his pockets; he initially did not comply.
Pope later complied and placed marijuana on the patrol car hood; he was cited with possession.
Pope moved to suppress the pocket contents, arguing the initial command was an unlawful search.
The district court denied suppression; Pope pleaded guilty but reserved appeal; the Ninth Circuit affirmed.
The court analyzes two separate pocket-emptying commands to determine if each constitutes a Fourth Amendment search.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the initial command to empty pockets is a search.	Pope argues the command invaded privacy.	Pope did not comply; thus no search occurred.	Initial command not a search.
Whether the second command to place marijuana on the hood is a search.	The command was a search without warrant.	The search was permissible under exigent circumstances and probable cause.	Second command constitutes a search but justified without warrant.
Whether the second command was valid under the search-incident-to-arrest framework.	No arrest; no valid search incident to arrest.	Search justified by probable cause and exigent circumstances.	Search justified by probable cause and exigent circumstances; affirmed.

Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) (established reasonable expectation of privacy)
Winsor, 846 F.2d 1569 (9th Cir. 1988) (visual access can constitute a search when lawfully commanded entry occurs)
Chatman, 573 F.2d 565 (9th Cir. 1997) (probable cause discussed in context of pre-arrest command)
Street, 614 F.3d 228 (6th Cir. 2010) (words alone may amount to a search; cannot sidestep Fourth Amendment by verbal command)
Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969) (scope of warrantless search must be limited to rationale for exception)