How has the court determined that the extraction of a cocaine pipe from the pocket of an alleged drug dealer during a search warrant search?

We next determine that the extraction of the pipe was justified, and the scope of the search was not excessive, despite appellant's argument to the contrary. In this case, the application of the "plain feel" or "sense of touch" doctrine exception to the requirement for a search warrant set out in Minnesota v. Dickerson (1993) 508 U.S. 366 (Dickerson) is clearly warranted. In Dickerson, an officer conducted a patdown of a suspect and felt a small lump in the suspect's jacket. (Id. at p. 369.) The officer examined the lump with his fingers, and concluded that it felt like rock cocaine in cellophane. (Ibid.) He then reached into the jacket pocket and retrieved the item, which was a small plastic bag containing cocaine. (Ibid.) Referring to the well-established `"plain view"' exception to the requirement for a warrant (id. at pp. 374-375), the court in Dickerson held that when a police officer lawfully pats down a suspect's outer clothing and feels an object whose identity as contraband is "immediately apparent," the officer may properly seize the object. (Id. at pp. 375-376.) In Dickerson, however, the court concluded that the officer exceeded the scope of the patdown search by "`squeezing, sliding and otherwise manipulating the contents of the defendant's pocket' a pocket which the officer already knew contained no weapon." (Id. at p. 378.)