State of Tennessee v. Ray Anthony Bridges
963 S.W.2d 487 (1997)
Rule of Law:
Under the 'plain feel' doctrine, an officer conducting a lawful patdown for weapons may seize an object only if its contour or mass makes its incriminating nature as contraband immediately apparent, establishing probable cause for the seizure without any further search or manipulation of the object.
Facts:
- A confidential informant, who had previously provided reliable information, told Officer D.W. Blackwell that Ray Anthony Bridges was selling crack cocaine 'right then' at a club called 'Preacher’s.'
- The informant stated that Bridges was carrying cash and drugs on his person.
- Officer Blackwell had previously received about half a dozen other tips regarding Bridges dealing crack cocaine in that specific area.
- Officer Blackwell was aware that Bridges had a prior conviction for felony assault and had recently been involved in an armed altercation with police.
- Approximately thirty minutes after receiving the tip, Officer Blackwell arrived at Preacher's and found Bridges sitting at a table.
- Blackwell ordered Bridges to stand against a wall and conducted a patdown of his outer clothing for weapons.
- During the patdown, Blackwell felt a small object in Bridges’ right jacket pocket that he recognized by its shape as a pill bottle.
- Based on his experience, Officer Blackwell believed this type of bottle was commonly used by crack dealers to store their product.
Procedural Posture:
- Ray Anthony Bridges filed a pre-trial motion to suppress evidence in the state trial court, arguing an unconstitutional search and seizure.
- The trial court denied the motion to suppress.
- Bridges then entered a guilty plea to possession of cocaine with intent to sell but explicitly reserved the right to appeal the trial court's ruling on the suppression motion.
- Bridges (as appellant) appealed to the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals.
- The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the trial court's denial of the motion to suppress.
- Bridges (as appellant) sought and was granted permission to appeal to the Supreme Court of Tennessee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an officer's tactile perception of a pill bottle in a suspect's pocket during a lawful patdown provide the probable cause necessary to seize the item under the 'plain feel' doctrine, when the officer knows such bottles are often used to hold illegal drugs?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No. The officer's tactile perception of a pill bottle did not make its incriminating nature immediately apparent, and therefore did not provide the probable cause necessary to seize it under the 'plain feel' doctrine. While the initial stop and frisk of Bridges were justified by reasonable suspicion under Terry v. Ohio, the subsequent seizure of the pill bottle was unconstitutional. The plain feel doctrine, as established in Minnesota v. Dickerson, requires that the object's identity as contraband be immediately apparent from touch alone. A pill bottle is an ambiguous, common item that can contain many legal substances, and its incriminating nature cannot be discerned merely by touching it. The officer's belief that the bottle contained contraband was a subjective suspicion, not an objective basis for probable cause, as he could not know the contents without removing and inspecting the bottle—a further search that exceeded the scope of a lawful Terry frisk.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Drowota, Justice
Yes. Considering the totality of the circumstances, the officer's tactile perception of the pill bottle provided sufficient probable cause to justify its seizure under the 'plain feel' doctrine. The majority misapplies the probable cause standard, which requires only a 'practical, nontechnical probability' that incriminating evidence is involved, not certainty. In this case, Officer Blackwell was not frisking a random person; he was frisking a specific individual who a reliable informant had just reported was carrying drugs on his person. This context, combined with the officer's tactile identification of an object he knew from experience is used to store crack cocaine, was sufficient to warrant a person of reasonable caution in believing the item contained contraband.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Reid, Justice
No. The seizure was not justified under the 'plain feel' doctrine, and furthermore, the initial stop itself was unconstitutional. This opinion dissents from the majority's finding that the initial stop was valid, arguing there were no exigent circumstances or immediate threat of harm to justify the detention. Since the stop was invalid from its inception, all evidence obtained from it must be suppressed. However, even if the stop had been lawful, this opinion concurs with the majority's conclusion that the seizure of the pill bottle was unconstitutional. The officer's tactile perception of a common, innocuous container like a pill bottle does not make its incriminating character 'immediately apparent' and does not rise to the level of probable cause. To permit seizure in such a case would wrongly expand the limited scope of a Terry frisk into a general exploratory search.
Analysis:
This case clarifies and narrowly applies the 'plain feel' doctrine from Minnesota v. Dickerson in Tennessee, setting a high bar for such seizures. The court's decision establishes that an officer's tactile perception of a common, legal container is insufficient to establish probable cause, even when combined with a reliable tip and knowledge of the suspect's criminal history. This holding significantly limits an officer's ability to seize items during a Terry frisk to only those objects whose criminal nature is self-evident from touch alone, such as feeling the distinct shape of a weapon or the texture of loose contraband. The ruling reinforces the distinction between reasonable suspicion (which justifies a frisk) and probable cause (which is required for a seizure), thereby preventing the protective weapons frisk from becoming a pretext for a general evidentiary search.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: State of Tennessee v. Ray Anthony Bridges (1997)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"