Final answer:
During a lawful frisk, if an officer feels something that is likely to be contraband or evidence of a crime, they may seize the item if they have reasonable suspicion.
Step-by-step explanation:
According to Terry v. Ohio, an officer may take further action if they feel something during a lawful frisk that is likely to be contraband or other evidence of a crime. In this scenario, the officer may seize the item if they have a reasonable suspicion that it is related to criminal activity. However, it is important to note that a frisk is limited to a pat-down search for weapons and not a full search of the individual or their belongings. During a lawful frisk, an officer may seize an object believed to be contraband if it is immediately apparent as such, based on the plain touch doctrine. A warrant is usually required for searches, under the Fourth Amendment's protection, but the plain touch rule is an exception. The exclusionary rule prevents illegally obtained evidence from being used in court.
If, during a lawful frisk activity, an officer feels something that is likely to be contraband or other evidence of a crime, the officer is allowed to seize that item. This is based on the legal principle of plain touch doctrine, which was established by the Supreme Court in the case of Minnesota v. Dickerson. This doctrine is an extension of the Terry v. Ohio decision, which allows an officer to stop and frisk a person for weapons if they have a reasonable suspicion that the person is currently armed and dangerous. If during this protective search, the officer feels an object whose contour or mass makes it immediately apparent that it is contraband or evidence of illegal activity, the officer may lawfully seize that object. This differs from the requirements for a traditional search, where typically a warrant is necessary. The Fourth Amendment protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures, and a warrant must generally be obtained by demonstrating probable cause to a judge. However, there are established exceptions, and the plain touch doctrine is one of them, allowing officers to seize contraband evident without a warrant during a lawful frisk. It's important to note that if the police conduct an illegal search or seizure without a warrant and do not fall under an exception, the evidence obtained cannot typically be used in court. This is known as the exclusionary rule, as established in the Mapp v. Ohio case.