in Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366, 378 (1993), the U.S. Supreme Court
upheld the suppression of the drugs seized from Mr. Dickerson's pocket, the Supreme Court explained: "Where, as here, 'an officer who is executing a valid search for one item seizes a different item,' this Court rightly 'has been sensitive to the danger . . . that officers will enlarge a specific authorization, furnished by a warrant or an exigency, into the equivalent of a general warrant to rummage and seize at will.' Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. at 748 (STEVENS, J., concurring in judgment). Here, the officer's continued exploration of respondent's pocket after having concluded that it contained no weapon was unrelated to 'the sole justification of the search [under Terry:] . . . the protection of the police officer and others nearby.' 392 U.S. at 29. It therefore amounted to the sort of evidentiary search that Terry expressly refused to authorize, see id at 26, and that we have condemned in subsequent cases. See Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. at 1049, n.14; Sibron, 392 U.S. at 65-66." Dickerson, 508 U.S. at 378.http://tinyurl.com/3ctwnlf
From the facts you've described, the second search is not legal. It violates the Fourth Amendment. The drugs will be suppressed as ruled by the U.S. Supreme Court in Dickerson. What procedures has the officer violated? The officer either violated the Constitution or the officer violated department policy in not properly/thoroughly searching the person for weapons the first time around.
It has been my pleasure to assist you today with your information needs. If you have a follow-up question, please reply and ask it. If you are satisfied that your question has been answered, kindly select the ACCEPT button to close this thread and so that I receive credit for assisting you today.