had followed the same neighborhood beat for many years, and knew almost every local on the beat, spotted Selina Kyle one evening. Officer Wayne knew

had followed the same neighborhood beat for many years, and knew almost every local on the beat, spotted Selina Kyle one evening. Officer Wayne knew Selina sometimes used drugs (and occasionally sold them), but he also knew Selina was absolutely harmless and would never hurt anyone. Officer Wayne observed Selina standing on a street corner, appearing to hand money to a stranger and received a package in return. Officer Wayne reasonably suspected (though he did not have probable cause to believe) that Selina just received drugs. He approached Selina, detained her, patted the pocket of her coat, felt a soft parcel, and then reached inside for it. At no time did he suspect Selina was carrying a weapon; he did, however, suspect the soft parcel he felt inside her coat pocket might well contain drugs. Indeed, the parcel did turn out to contain cocaine, for which he arrested Selina. At her drug-possession trial, Selina moved to suppress the parcel as being the fruit of a Fourth Amendment violation. Should the court grant her motion? A. No, Officer Wayne had reasonable suspicion to make a lawful stop and was entitled to a two-part frisk (first pat down, then reaching under the surface if the pat-down disclosed something). B. No, because Officer Wayne had sufficiently reasonable and objective reasons, based on his experience, to arrest Selina. C. Yes, because Officer Wayne did not suspect Selina was armed and dangerous and was merely frisking her to find drugs. D. Yes, because police officers are never allowed to detain someone without probable cause to believe they have committed a crime.