U.S. v. Craft, 94-1756

Citation30 F.3d 1044
Decision Date01 August 1994
Docket NumberNo. 94-1756,94-1756
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Kareem Sekou CRAFT, Appellant.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)

Gerald V. Tanner, Jr., St. Louis, MO, argued (Kenneth H. Gibert, on the brief), for appellant.

Kenneth R. Tihen, St. Louis, MO, argued, for appellee.

Before FAGG, WOLLMAN, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.

FAGG, Circuit Judge.

After Kareem Sekou Craft exited an airplane at the St. Louis airport, police officers asked Craft if they could pat him down and Craft consented. During the search, an officer felt bulges around Craft's ankles. Believing the bulges were drugs, the officer lifted Craft's pant legs and discovered packages taped to Craft's ankles. The packages contained cocaine and heroin. When the government charged Craft with possession with intent to distribute cocaine and heroin under 21 U.S.C. Sec. 841(a)(1), Craft moved to suppress the drugs seized from his ankles. Following a hearing before a magistrate judge, the district court held an additional evidentiary hearing and denied Craft's motion. The district court concluded the officers lawfully seized the drugs under the plain-feel doctrine. See Minnesota v. Dickerson, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 2130, 124 L.Ed.2d 334 (1993). Craft then pleaded guilty to the charges. Craft appeals and we affirm.

Craft contends the officers had no justification to seize the packages taped to his ankles without a warrant, and thus, the district court should have suppressed the cocaine and heroin found in the packages. We disagree. Under Dickerson, an officer may seize an object discovered in a pat-down search if the object's incriminating character is immediately apparent to the officer's touch. Id. at ----, 113 S.Ct. at 2137. Although Dickerson involved a stop and frisk under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968), we believe the plain-feel exception to the warrant requirement announced in Dickerson applies to consensual pat-down searches as well. In Dickerson, the Supreme Court clearly stated that the analogous plain-view doctrine applies "to cases in which an officer discovers contraband through the sense of touch during an otherwise lawful search." Dickerson, --- U.S. at ----, 113 S.Ct. at 2137; see United States v. Martin, 982 F.2d 1236, 1238-39 (8th Cir.1993) (pat-down search following valid consent is constitutionally permissible).

In this case, Craft concedes he voluntarily consented to a pat-down search. Nevertheless, Craft argues the sense-of-touch rule does not apply to this case because the contents of the bulges on his ankles could not have been immediately apparent to the officers. The record, however, clearly reveals otherwise. At the suppression hearing, the officer who searched Craft testified that the bulges on Craft's...

To continue reading

Request your trial
145 cases
  • State v. Bridges
    • United States
    • Tennessee Supreme Court
    • 31 Diciembre 1997
    ...supra (pill bottle in groin); Rushing, supra, (Life Saver Hole candy container in front pants pocket); see also United States v. Craft, 30 F.3d 1044, 1045 (8th Cir.1994) (bulges of heroine packages around defendant's ankles); United States v. Hughes, 15 F.3d 798, 802 (8th Cir.1994) ("small ......
  • DePugh v. Penning, C 93-0226.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa
    • 26 Mayo 1995
    ...character is immediately apparent to the officer's touch." Id., ___ U.S. at ___, 113 S.Ct. at 2137; see also United States v. Craft, 30 F.3d 1044 (8th Cir.1994) (validity of "plain feel" 27 The court rejects as unreasonable any suggestion that just because the photograph might suggest that ......
  • U.S. v. Lemons
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Wisconsin
    • 30 Julio 2001
    ...nature of the item must be immediately apparent. Id.; United States v. Rivers, 121 F.3d 1043, 1046 (7th Cir.1997); United States v. Craft, 30 F.3d 1044, 1045 (8th Cir.1994). In Dickerson, an officer did not immediately recognize a lump within the suspect's pocket as crack cocaine. Instead, ......
  • The State of Ariz. v. AHUMADA
    • United States
    • Arizona Court of Appeals
    • 28 Octubre 2010
    ...inside a suspect's clothing based on the feel of the contraband and the other surrounding circumstances. See, e.g., United States v. Craft, 30 F.3d 1044, 1045 (8th Cir.1994) (plain-feel doctrine permitted seizing drugs from inside defendant's pant leg when officer felt bulges on defendant's......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT