State v. Pelky

1 Lance Pelky appeals a judgment convicting him of possessing THC as a repeater. Pelky pled no contest after the trial court denied his motion to suppress the marijuana seized during a pat-down search performed by officer James Schaut. The trial court ruled that Schaut had the right to frisk Pelky for weapons and the marijuana was in plain view. Pelky argues (1) Shaut lacked any reasonable articulable suspicion to support the pat-down search and (2) the plain view doctrine does not apply because Schaut was not legally entitled to be in a position to observe the marijuana because he saw it during the pat-down search. We need not decide whether the pat-down search was justified because we conclude the marijuana was in Schauts plain view even if he had not been performing the pat down search.