State v. Leach

"After a patdown, an officer may not conduct a further search unless the officer develops reasonable suspicion, based on specific and articulable facts, that the person poses a serious threat of harm and that a further search would lessen or eliminate that threat.'" State v. Davenport, 272 Or App 725, 731, 357 P3d 514, adh'd to as modified on recons, 275 Or App 20, 361 P3d 669 (2015).

Defendant appealed a judgment of conviction for unlawful manufacture of methamphetamines within 1,000 feet of a school and unlawful possession of methamphetamine. Defendant assigned error to the trial court's denial of his motion suppress evidence "obtained as a result of an officer's warrantless search of Defendant's shorts pocket. Defendant argued that the officer's intrusion into his pocket was unwarranted because no facts established any suspicion that defendant posed a serious or immediate threat of physical harm to the officer at the time of the search. The State argued that given the totality of the circumstances, the search of the pocket was justified by reasonable safety concerns. "After a patdown, an officer may not conduct a further search unless the officer develops reasonable suspicion, based on specific and articulable facts, that the person poses a serious threat of harm and that a further search would lessen or eliminate that threat." State v. Davenport, 272 Or App 725, 731, 357 P3d 514, adh'd to as modified on recons, 275 Or App 20, 361 P3d 669 (2015). The Court held that the State failed to present any specific or articulable facts that provided reasonable justification for the intrusion into Defendant's pocket under the circumstances. Reversed and remanded.