Which doctrine permits seizure of contraband during a pat-down when its contour or mass indicates contraband?

• A. Requires a search warrant to seize contraband
• B. Prohibits seizing contraband during pat-downs
• C. Allows only verbal search for contraband
• D. Permits an officer to seize any object whose contour or mass is identified as apparent contraband during a pat-down

Answer: (D)

The key idea is the plain feel (plain touch) doctrine that applies during a lawful stop-and-frisk. Under this rule, an officer may seize contraband if, during a pat-down for weapons, the object’s contour, shape, or mass clearly indicates it is contraband without the officer having to manipulate it beyond what is necessary to determine that identification. This doctrine comes from the combination of Terry v. Ohio, which permits a limited pat-down for weapons, and Minnesota v. Dickerson, which allows seizure of contraband only when its identity is immediately apparent by touch. If the officer must manipulate the object to determine what it is, the seizure isn’t allowed unless there’s separate probable cause or another warrant exception.

So, when a pat-down reveals something whose feel makes its nature obvious as contraband, seizure is permitted. The other choices don’t fit because a warrant isn’t required for a permissible plain-feel seizure during a valid frisk, a verbal-only search isn’t the standard in this scenario, and the rule isn’t a blanket allow-any-object seizure—only those items whose contraband nature is clearly indicated by touch.