If there was no interaction prior to that statement, no, I doubt it would hold up.
Consent to search must generally be affirmative.
Half right. It’s true that the pat-down authorized by Terry is for officer safety, and must be supported by specific and articulable facts that the officer can raise that created a concern for his safety. But consistent with other Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, once the officer is legally in position to observe or perceive something, he is not required to ignore it simply because it’s beyond the scope of his initial search. An officer executing a search warrant for stolen car stereos, for example, is not required to ignore the fully automatic weapons he uncovers during the search, even though he had no inkling, much less probable cause, to believe they were there.
During a Terry search, an officer cannot search inside any pocket in which he feels a lump. The nature of the lump must somehow give rise to probable cause. That’s why I mentioned the classic line, “I relied on my training and experience to determine that what I felt was a …”