A client, David, has come into your office with the following story:

He was walking in downtown San Jose at 3:15 in the morning, in an area known for crime, at night. He was carrying a large bag. He does not live in the area, and was not sure where he was going, which caused him to change direction several times, and he was looking for the addresses on buildings to help figure out where he was.

A police officer approached him, and asked what was in the bag; David explained that he is an artist, and that he is carrying items for his display; he has been invited to be a part of "San Jose Art in Public Places", and his exhibit requires a structure that he assembles on location; the disassembled structure is in the bag.

At this point, the officer felt as though David was lying. Based on the high crime area, and that David was walking alone, he asked David to stand against a wall while he conducted a pat-down of David's clothing. The officer felt what appeared to be a lump in David's jacket. The officer immediately reached into David's pocket and found a small "bindle" of cocaine; in fact, the lump that the officer had felt was the remains of a burrito David had purchased at the airport earlier in the day that was also in David's pocket.

You are asked to research a motion to suppress the evidence; the state will write a motion in response.

Based on what you know from Backley, Minnesota v. Dickerson, and Medina, write a brief for your employer explaining the state of the law.

In your first paragraph, explain what justifies an officer's intrusion on a suspect's person - what will the officer point to when questioned by the court. Are there different levels of justification, and if so, what are they.

In your second paragraph, explain what you think the state will argue to justify the search.

In your third and final (very short) paragraph, explain what the court will hold - was the further search justified (reaching into David's pocket)?