Steve Ford was driving on the interstate smoking marijuana. Police got an anonymous tip about Steve's misbehavior including where he parked it. Police located the car, smelled marijuana in it, and followed footprints in the snow to an apartment where several people were. Three people, including Steve, admitted being in the car. The officer ordered them outside to talk.

Outside, the officer asked Steve if he had a knife. He admitted he did. The officer then patted him down, found the knife and removed it from Steve's pocket. The officer then searched Steve's other pockets and found a bag of marijuana. The Trial court ruled the marijuana was illegally seized. If police have reason to suspect a crime has occurred an officer has the right to briefly stop a person and ask investigatory questions, and if a weapon is apparent search for it. However, the judge ruled ordering Steve out of the apartment, wasn't reasonable because a marijuana offense wasn't so serious that it might lead to violence, and he did not have enough information to make an arrest.

The State appealed saying the police had reason to investigate a marijuana offense, and if they have reasonable suspicion that the officer's safety is at risk, can order a person to a secure location, and frisk him for weapons incident to the investigation.

A unanimous Supreme Court agreed, because a drug offense could lead to violence, and there was enough evidence of criminal conduct to warrant an investigation.

However, the Court was not so sure about the pocket search that produced the marijuana. Evidence obtained during a "frisk" without an arrest, and without the suspect's consent, can only be seized lawfully if the officer could tell by "plain feel" during a pat down that it was illegal. The Court was uncertain that Steve had consented to the search and that a "plain feel" of a soft substance in Steve's pocket could lead to the conclusion that it was marijuana. The case was remanded to have answer these questions.

The Constitution represents a fine line. A free society requires protections from crime, but also restrictions on police searches. It is not too shocking to order a person out of a dwelling for a brief investigation without a warrant and without cause to arrest. But allowing the police to rummage through a person's pockets is fraught with the possibility of abuse. Good decision. State v. Ford 2007 Vt. 107.