State v. Stevens

24 Citing cases

  1. State v. Traylor

    723 So. 2d 497 (La. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 11 times
    In State v. Traylor, 31,378 (La.App. 2d Cir.12/09/98), 723 So.2d 497, this court found that the odor of marijuana emanating from a vehicle gave the officer probable cause to suspect that the defendant was smoking, and thus possessing, marijuana.

    Our emphasis. In State v. Stevens, 95-501 (La.App. 5th Cir. 3/26/96), 672 So.2d 986, the police observed Stevens flagging down a vehicle in a known drug area. Searching for a weapon, an officer felt a matchbox in Stevens' right front pocket.

  2. State v. Barney

    708 So. 2d 1205 (La. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 28 times
    In State v. Barney, 97-777 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2/25/98), 708 So.2d 1205, an officer conducting a patdown frisk felt an object he thought was a matchbox in one of the defendant's rear jeans pockets.

    The state responds that Deputy Farrell had reasonable cause to stop and pat defendant down. The state also contends that the seizure of the matchbox was justified and relies on this Court's decision in State v. Stevens, 95-501 (La.App. 5 Cir. 3/26/96), 672 So.2d 986. The issue before us is, initially, whether the investigatory stop and frisk was legal.

  3. Ball v. U.S.

    803 A.2d 971 (D.C. 2002)   Cited 21 times
    Discussing the "plain feel" doctrine and noting that distinctive packaging may help support a police officer's conclusion that the nature of the contraband was "immediately apparent"

    Id. at 500. Accord State v. Stevens, 672 So.2d 986, 988 (La.Ct.App. 1996) ("[I]n the pocket of a drug-selling suspect flagging down cars at night in an area known for illegal drug trafficking, a small matchbox can be immediately recognized, by feel, for what it almost surely is, a depository for crack cocaine."). See also State v. Lee, 709 N.E.2d 1217, 1219-20 (Ohio Ct. App. 1998) (contraband contained in pill bottle immediately apparent).

  4. State v. Vessel

    131 So. 3d 523 (La. Ct. App. 2014)   Cited 4 times

    Id., p. 5, 684 So.2d at 1049.See also, State v. Stevens, 95–501 (La.App. 5 Cir. 3/26/96), 672 So.2d 986 (where the seizure of drugs in a matchbox detected during a lawful pat-down was upheld after the officer testified that her prior experience indicated that most street-level crack dealers carried their drugs in a matchbox.) In light of the jurisprudence and the circumstances in this case, we find that the Officer Aranda had probable cause to seize the heroin, under the plain feel exception, once he felt, in his experience and observations, what he recognized to be contraband under the defendant's shorts.

  5. State v. Candebat

    133 So. 3d 304 (La. Ct. App. 2014)   Cited 14 times

    Thus, in State v. Parker, 622 So.2d 791 (La.App. 4th Cir.), writ. denied, 627 So.2d 660 (La.1993), the seizure of a matchbox containing cocaine detected during a pat-down search was found not to fall within the “plain feel” exception because there was no evidence that a matchbox's shape was identifiable as contraband. In contrast, in State v. Stevens, 95–501 (La.App. 5th Cir.3/26/96), 672 So.2d 986, the seizure of drugs in a matchbox detected during a lawful pat-down was upheld because the officer testified that her prior experience indicated that most street-level crack dealers carried their drugs in a matchbox. Similarly, where testimony establishes that an object detected during a pat-down was immediately identifiable as a “crack pipe,” suppression of the cocaine residue contained within the pipe is not required.

  6. State v. Vessel

    NO. 2012-KA-1543 (La. Ct. App. Jan. 10, 2014)

    Id., p. 5, 684 So.2d at 1049. See also, State v. Stevens, 95-501 (La. App. 5 Cir. 3/26/96), 672 So.2d 986 (where the seizure of drugs in a matchbox detected during a lawful pat-down was upheld after the officer testified that her prior experience indicated that most street-level crack dealers carried their drugs in a matchbox.) In light of the jurisprudence and the circumstances in this case, we find that the Officer Aranda had probable cause to seize the heroin, under the plain feel exception, once he felt, in his experience and observations, what he recognized to be contraband under the defendant's shorts.

  7. State v. Banks

    95 So. 3d 1081 (La. Ct. App. 2012)   Cited 3 times

    Thus, in State v. Parker, 622 So.2d 791 (La.App. 4th Cir.), writ denied,627 So.2d 660 (1993), the seizure of a matchbox containing cocaine detected during a pat-down search was found not to fall within the “plain feel” exception because there was no evidence that a matchbox's shape was identifiable as contraband. In contrast, in State v. Stevens, 95–501 (La.App. 5th Cir.3/26/96), 672 So.2d 986, the seizure of drugs in a matchbox detected during a lawful pat-down was upheld because the officer testified that her prior experience indicated that most street-level crack dealers carried their drugs in a matchbox. Similarly, where testimony establishes that an object detected during a pat-down was immediately identifiable as a “crack pipe,” suppression of the cocaine residue contained within the pipe is not required.

  8. State v. Banks

    NO. 2011-KA-0903 (La. Ct. App. Mar. 21, 2012)

    Thus, in State v. Parker, 622 So.2d 791 (La. App. 4th Cir.), writ denied, 627 So.2d 660 (1993), the seizure of a matchbox containing cocaine detected during a pat-down search was found not to fall within the "plain feel" exception because there was no evidence that a matchbox's shape was identifiable as contraband. In contrast, in State v. Stevens, 95-501 (La. App. 5th Cir. 3/26/96), 672 So.2d 986, the seizure of drugs in a matchbox detected during a lawful pat-down was upheld because the officer testified that her prior experience indicated that most street-level crack dealers carried their drugs in a matchbox. Similarly, where testimony establishes that an object detected during a pat-down was immediately identifiable as a "crack pipe," suppression of the cocaine residue contained within the pipe is not required.

  9. State v. Bell

    70 So. 3d 1052 (La. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 3 times

    Thus, in State v. Parker, 622 So.2d 791 (La.App. 4th Cir.), writ, denied, 627 So.2d 660 (La. 1993), the seizure of a matchbox containing cocaine detected during a pat-down search was found not to fall within the "plain feel" exception because there was no evidence that a matchbox's shape was identifiable as contraband. In contrast, in State v. Stevens, 95-501 (La.App. 5th Cir. 3/26/96), 672 So.2d 986, the seizure of drugs in a matchbox detected during a lawful pat-down was upheld because the officer testified that her prior experience indicated that most street-level crack dealers carried their drugs in a matchbox. Similarly, where testimony establishes that an object detected during a pat-down was immediately identifiable as a "crack pipe," suppression of the cocaine residue contained within the pipe is not required.

  10. State v. Craft

    870 So. 2d 359 (La. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 14 times

    Thus, in State v. Parker, 622 So.2d 791 (La.App. 4th Cir.), writ denied, 627 So.2d 660 (1993), the seizure of a matchbox containing cocaine detected during a pat-down search was found not to fall within the "plain feel" exception because there was no evidence that a matchbox's shape was identifiable as contraband. In contrast, in State v. Stevens, 95-501 (La.App. 5th Cir. 3/26/96), 672 So.2d 986, the seizure of drugs in a matchbox detected during a lawful pat-down was upheld because the officer testified that her prior experience indicated that most street-level crack dealers carried their drugs in a matchbox. Similarly, where testimony establishes that an object detected during a pat-down was immediately identifiable as a "crack pipe," suppression of the cocaine residue contained within the pipe is not required.