Commonwealth v. Stackfield

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that a zip-lock baggie was not immediately identifiable as contraband
• holding that the warrantless, protective pat- down search of the defendant’s person did not meet the “plain feel” warrant exception, and stating that “[a] zip-lock baggie is not per se contraband, although material contained in a zip-lock baggie may well be.”
• stating appellant was present in house on which police executed a search warrant and was handcuffed while officers were securing the premises and frisked shortly afterwards
• stating, “[a] zip-lock baggie is not per se contraband … [and s]ight unseen, the contents of the baggies that the officer felt in appellant’s pants pockets could as easily have contained the remains of appellant’s lunch as contraband[]”
• overturning trial court’s conclusion that the item felt was immediately recognized as contraband, because the officer felt and recognized only a baggie, and “[a] zip-lock baggie is not per se contraband, although material contained in a zip-lock baggie may well be.”
• officer's testimony that he felt zip-lock baggie during Terry frisk did not support conclusion that officer felt item that he immediately recognized as contraband since baggie is not \per se contraband\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).