Frisk Requirements: Officer Needs Reasonable Suspicion Person is Armed

The police must have a flexible set of escalating responses beginning with an articulable suspicion and extending to a reason to believe that the suspect is armed. If a frisk reveals that there is a weapon, then the police officer may arrest and search the suspect.

C. If the officer has reasonable belief or suspicion, based upon reliable information or · personal observation, that a weapon is being carried or concealed in some specific · place on the person of the suspect, they should immediately check that area before ... D. A frisk should not be a pretext to search for evidence of a crime; it must be of a

Indicator. In this case the officers saw

within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment and that Officer McFadden’s frisk for · weapons was a search. However, Douglas insisted that under established law, any Fourth · Amendment search and seizure cannot be constitutional unless the officer has probable · cause to believe that a crime has been committed, is being committed or is about to be · committed. (Terry, supra, at 35, dis. opn. of Douglas J.) And officers are allowed to · search without warrants only when the facts within their personal knowledge would

officer should therefor look for additional facts which may corroborate the anonymous call and observe · the suspect without confronting him to see if he exhibits any indicators of someone who is armed, or if · he commits any other offense for which the officer can conduct a stop or arrest. This example is based on · an actual case, where the officer immediately approached the suspect, frisked him, and recovered a

The Chief Justice reasoned that the test of reasonableness in this sort of situation is whether the police officer can point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts would lead a neutral magistrate on review to conclude that a man of reasonable caution would be warranted in believing that possible criminal behavior was at hand and that both an investigative stop and a frisk was required.6Footnote

The court reasoned that, even though the officers did not have evidence that any one of the three occupants was responsible for the drugs, probable cause existed as to all of them because co-occupants of a vehicle are often engaged in a common enterprise and all three denied knowing anything about the drugs.

In Utah v. Strieff, 579 U.S. (2016), ... and untainted arrest warrant" for an individual, then any evidence obtained from a stop of that individual will be admissible in court, even if the stop would otherwise violate the Fourth ...

Officer Sydnor’s search was valid; the crack cocaine evidence will be admissible in court. He limited his initial search to a pat-down of Johnny’s exterior clothing (and shoes), he thought that the bulge might be a gun, and he was reasonable in still not knowing whether it was a gun immediately before grabbing it. (United States v. Harris, 313 F.3d 1228 (10th Cir. 2002).) If an officer didn’t have a legal basis for a Terry frisk or went beyond the limits of such a search, the resulting evidence will be normally inadmissible in court—if the defense files a motion to suppress evidence.