Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. Rhodes

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Decided February 21, 1990No. S-89-614Published

1DissentLumpkin, Judge

I must respectfully dissent to the Court’s decision in this case.

The Court determines the scope of a “Terry pat-down” must be strictly limited to a search for offensive weapons. While I concur with the application of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968), as to the basis and purpose of the initial intrusion, I cannot agree with the rationale that a police officer who is legally conducting a Terry search and discovers illegal contraband must disregard that contraband just because it is not a weapon. This interpretation completely disregards the “plain view (touch)”…

2Cases cited27 opinions

  1. Terry v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
  2. Katz v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  3. Coolidge v. New HampshireSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
  4. Arkansas v. SandersSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  5. Washington v. ChrismanSupreme Court of the United States · 1982

22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API