The Pennsylvania Supreme Court attempted to clarify the burden of proof law enforcement must present to recover contraband during an otherwise lawful Terry frisk. Here, after a car stop, a police officer saw the defendant — a passenger in the car — shield his body from the officer’s view and reach into his pockets. The officer removed the defendant from the vehicle and conducted a frisk. During the search, he felt a hard object in the defendant’s left pants pocket. The officer could not identify the object by touch but feared it could be a weapon. It turned out to be a glass prescription medication bottle. The plain feel doctrine was at issue. The defendant claimed the Commonwealth must have probable cause to believe that the item was a weapon subject to seizure. The Supreme Court revisited its plurality decision in Commonwealth v. Taylor, and the “immediately apparent” doctrine established in Minnesota v. Dickerson before holding that, when a police officer conducting a Terry frisk detects an object within a suspect’s clothing, the officer may remove the object under one of two justifications. Pursuant to Terry, an officer may remove an object from within a suspect’s clothing under the reasonable suspicion that the object is a weapon. If, however, during the frisk, the police officer can determine that the object is not a weapon, the officer may only remove the object if, by touch, it is immediately apparent that the object is illegal contraband. Here, the Court found that the search and seizure of contraband were legal because the officer had reasonable suspicion to believe that the object was a weapon.
