The Albany police made an investigative stop of a vehicle in *92 which David L. Roddy was a front seat passenger. 1 The driver gave the officers consent to search the vehiсle, and during the search, one officer saw a gun under a rear seat passenger’s leg. Another passenger began fighting with the officers as a second officer attempted to remove him from the rear seat. The third rear seat passenger got out of the vеhicle and, while being patted down, stated that he had “a little bit of weed”; the officer found marijuana and cocaine in his pants pocket. All three rear seat passengers were arrested on various charges.
An officer then conducted a protеctive patdown of Roddy and discovered a plastic bag of marijuana hidden in his clothing. Roddy was charged with possession of marijuana with the intent to distribute. He filed a motion to suppress. The trial court granted the motion, finding that the search was improper under the “plain feel” doctrine. The State appeals from the trial court’s order, and we vacate and remand because the State was not properly placed on notice of this basis for Roddy’s motion to suppress.
In his motion, Roddy specifically challеnged the probable cause to search him, claiming that “[requiring Mr. Roddy to exit the vehicle, the interrogation and the search [werе] without probable cause or reasonable suspicion that the Defendant had committed any crime.” In addition, the motion allеged that the search violated Fourth Amendment constitutional concerns because no warrant had issued. But Roddy raised no issue regаrding the seizure of the drugs under the “plain feel” doctrine.
On April 15, 1997, an evidentiary hearing was held on the motion. The arresting officer testified in narrative fashion about the circumstances surrounding the stop and arrest. The officer testified that during the initial protective patdоwn of Roddy, he “felt a bag or something soft and smushy at that point.” Thereafter, a plastic bag containing eight individual baggies of marijuana аnd a quarter ounce bag of marijuana were seized from Roddy’s shorts. During the hearing, no questions were asked by either the State or the dеfense addressing the actual seizure of the plastic bag containing the contraband. The arguments of counsel were relatеd solely to the issue of probable cause to search Roddy in the first place. 2 Further, the trial court expressed concern only about the issue of a basis for the search: “But the question is . . . whether there was any reason to search this man. He wasn’t doing anything.”
Three weeks after the evidentiary hearing, Roddy filed a “Brief
*93
in Support of Defendant’s Motion to Suppress.” In this brief, Roddy for the first time raised the issue of the “plain feel” doctrine. He claimed the officer’s testimony at the suppression hearing did not support seizure under the “рlain feel” doctrine based upon this Court’s decision in
Boatright v. State,
Thereafter, citing Boatright, the trial court granted Roddy’s motion to suppress and found that “the search conducted exceeded the bounds of the ‘plain feel’ corollary to the ‘plain view’ doctrine.”
The State raises the issue that “[о]nly after the evidentiary hearing was held, did Appellee offer argument, via his brief in support of motion to suppress, that the State had violated the ‘plain feel’ doctrine.” The State’s complaint has merit.
As a matter of course, evidence exclusion is an extreme sanction and one not favored in the law. See, e.g.,
Bazemore v. State,
Ultimately, the suрpression motion must be “sufficient to put the [S]tate on notice as to the type of search involved (without warrant vs. with warrant), which witness tо bring to the hearing on the motion, and
the legal issues to be resolved at that hearing”
(Emphasis supplied.)
Lavelle v. State,
Here, no аrgument based on the “plain feel” doctrine was raised so as to notify the State to question the officer specifically regаrding the evidentiary standard for seizure under “plain feel.” In the middle of a long narrative, the officer testified generally as to what the plastic bag felt like “at that point” when he first discovered it on Roddy’s person. No one asked the officer about the
contents
of the plаstic bag; no one inquired whether the officer could deduce the contents through his “sense of touch”; no one asked the officer whether the bag was, ultimately, “an object whose contour or mass [made] its
*94
identity immediately apparent” to the officer priоr to its seizure. See
Boatright,
supra,
Because an issue regarding “plain feel” was not raised in the motion to suppress and the State was not proрerly placed on notice that this issue would be raised at the hearing on the motion, the evidentiary basis upon which the trial court found the search exceeded the bounds of the “plain feel” doctrine was not fully developed. See, e.g.,
Seaman,
supra at 878-880 (2); see generally
State v: Armstrong,
A motion to supprеss may be amended at the discretion of the trial court. See generally
Kessler v. State,
Judgment vacated and case remanded with direction.
Notes
The stop was allegedly pursuant to
Terry v.
Ohio,
We note that the standard for a Terry stop is “reasonable, articulable suspicion” rather than probable cause.
See generally State v. Lawrence, 264 Ga. 262 (443 SE2d 270) (1994).