With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". characteristics of the area to be searched, or the investigating officer’s observations, do not reasonably suggest the presence of firearms or ammunition. See, e.g., State v. Younger, 305 N.J.Super. 250, 702 A.2d 477, 479-80 (Ct.App.Div.1997) (opening a closed, pliable, three-ineh-by-two-ineh vinyl change purse which had an identity card sticking out and contained heroin exceeded the scope of a consent to search for a handgun inasmuch as the police officer “conceded that the purse obviously could not have contained a gun and that anything sharp or hard that might have been inside it could have been felt without opening it” and the police officer also admitted that he had searched the purse for identification and ammunition); Foster v. State, 285 Ga.App. 441, 646 S.E.2d 302, 306 (2007) (<HOLDING>). See also State v. Barnes, 58 Haw. 333, 339,

A: holding that the defendants consent to a search of his pockets for weapons cannot be interpreted as having extended so far as to have authorized the police officer to remove the contents of the defendants pockets unless he came upon something that felt like a weapon or an object immediately identifiable as contraband according to the police officer he felt neither
B: holding that appellant did not unequivocally consent to a search when deputy asked him if he would mind if the contents of his pockets were removed and appellant did not respond
C: holding that defendants status as police officer did not obviate the requirement of miranda
D: holding that having the defendant follow an officer to a police station three to four miles away after the officer had asked for and retained the defendants drivers license reg istration and title was not permissible as part of a terry stop and stating that we understand the hayes decision as eliminating the option of forcing the suspect to go to the police station from the alternatives available to the officer during an investigative detention
A.