Also known as: pat down · patdown · pat-downs · frisk · Terry frisk
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A limited search of a person's outer clothing performed by an officer during a lawful investigative stop. The officer may conduct the pat-down only upon reasonable suspicion that the individual is armed and dangerous. The search must remain confined to detecting weapons and may not extend to manipulation or seizure of other objects unless their incriminating character is immediately apparent.
Pavel Petrov sat in the passenger seat during a lawful traffic stop. The officer observed a bulge under Petrov's jacket and noted nervous behavior consistent with carrying a weapon. The officer ordered Petrov out of the vehicle and conducted a pat-down that revealed a handgun.
Patrick Phan stood on a street corner matching a description in an anonymous call. The tip supplied only the person's appearance and location without any predictive facts. Officers approached and performed a pat-down that uncovered contraband, which a court later suppressed.
Penelope Price was stopped on reasonable suspicion of carrying a weapon. During the pat-down the officer felt a small hard object in her pocket and immediately recognized its shape as crack cocaine. The officer seized the item without further manipulation.
Pedro Pacheco lingered outside a closed bank while repeatedly touching his waistband. An officer with articulable facts supporting suspicion of robbery detained Pacheco and performed a pat-down that located a firearm.
Pamela Phillips agreed to participate in a controlled drug purchase. Before sending her into the transaction officers conducted a pat-down to confirm she carried no personal drugs or weapons that could compromise the operation.
On July 31, 2003, Eric Besore contacted DEA task force officer Steven Thibodeau to arrange a controlled purchase of drugs from an individual nicknamed Hoot. Besore had previously agreed to assist Thibodeau with drug investigations in exchange for help dismissing a criminal speeding charge. Thibodeau and other agents gave Besore $1,000, equipped him with an electronic transmitting device resembling a pager, searched him and his vehicle, and sent a surveillance team including Thibodeau and Barry Kelly to monitor the transaction in Westbrook, Maine. Besore drove to a parking lot at King and Brown Streets. Kelly parked nearby to record transmissions from the device while Thibodeau maintained contact by cell phone. After a uniformed officer stopped a nearby vehicle, Besore moved his car up the street. Thibodeau later observed Besore in the driver's seat of his car with a black male later identified as Dwayne J. Anderson in the passenger seat. Kelly saw Anderson exit Besore's car and enter a green Subaru parked behind it. Besore then drove away and met Thibodeau, handing him a plastic bag containing a substance that field-tested positive for cocaine base. Thibodeau placed the substance in evidence envelope 159263, locked it in the DEA safe, and mailed it to the DEA laboratory in New York. Chemist Brian O'Rourke later confirmed the substance was cocaine base weighing 6.1 grams. On October 23, 2003, a grand jury indicted Anderson for knowingly and intentionally distributing five or more grams of cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(B). A two-day jury trial began on April 7, 2004, in the District of Maine. At trial the government introduced a copy of the recording from Besore's transmitting device along with a transcript prepared by the prosecutor. Kelly authenticated the transcript by comparing it to the tape. The court gave limiting instructions that the tape was the evidence and any discrepancies must be resolved in favor of the tape. Besore did not appear despite a government subpoena. The defense requested a missing witness instruction, which the court denied. The court also excluded evidence of Besore's prior felony conviction for tampering with a witness during cross-examination of Thibodeau and admitted the drugs over a chain-of-custody objection. The jury convicted Anderson after nearly two hours of deliberation. The PSR calculated a base offense level of 26 based on 6.1 grams of crack cocaine. It classified Anderson as a career offender, though the government later conceded he lacked the required predicate offenses and should be placed in criminal history category III. At sentencing on April 27, 2005, the district court found the substance was crack cocaine, set the Guidelines range at 78 to 97 months, and imposed a sentence of 78 months' imprisonment, five years of supervised release, and a $100 assessment. Anderson timely appealed both conviction and sentence.
Parker Phillips was stopped for speeding and appeared intoxicated. Officers observed a large knife on the floorboard and conducted a pat-down of Phillips that revealed a weapon.
In a rural area of Michigan one evening shortly after midnight, Deputies Howell and Lewis observed a car traveling erratically and at excessive speed. The officers observed the car turning down a side road, where it swerved off into a shallow ditch. The officers stopped to investigate. Long, the only occupant of the automobile, met the deputies at the rear of the car, which was protruding from the ditch onto the road. The door on the driver's side of the vehicle was left open. Deputy Howell requested Long to produce his operator's license, but he did not respond. After the request was repeated, Long produced his license. Long again failed to respond when Howell requested him to produce the vehicle registration. After another repeated request, Long, who Howell thought appeared to be under the influence of something, turned from the officers and began walking toward the open door of the vehicle. The officers followed Long and both observed a large hunting knife on the floorboard of the driver's side of the car. The officers then stopped Long's progress and subjected him to a Terry protective patdown, which revealed no weapons. Long and Deputy Lewis then stood by the rear of the vehicle while Deputy Howell shined his flashlight into the interior of the vehicle, but did not actually enter it. The purpose of Howell's action was to search for other weapons. The officer noticed that something was protruding from under the armrest on the front seat. He knelt in the vehicle and lifted the armrest. He saw an open pouch on the front seat, and upon flashing his light on the pouch, determined that it contained what appeared to be marihuana. After Deputy Howell showed the pouch and its contents to Deputy Lewis, Long was arrested for possession of marihuana. A further search of the interior of the vehicle, including the glovebox, revealed neither more contraband nor the vehicle registration. The officers decided to impound the vehicle. Deputy Howell opened the trunk, which did not have a lock, and discovered inside it approximately 75 pounds of marihuana. The Barry County Circuit Court denied Long's motion to suppress the marihuana taken from both the interior of the car and its trunk. He was subsequently convicted of possession of marihuana. The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed Long's conviction, holding that the search of the passenger compartment was valid as a protective search under Terry. The Michigan Supreme Court reversed. The court held that the sole justification of the Terry search, protection of the police officers and others nearby, cannot justify the search in this case. The marihuana found in Long's trunk was considered by the court below to be the fruit of the illegal search of the interior, and was also suppressed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider the authority of a police officer to protect himself by conducting a Terry-type search of the passenger compartment of a motor vehicle during the lawful investigatory stop of the occupant of the vehicle.
An officer may conduct a pat-down of a passenger when the officer possesses reasonable suspicion that the passenger is armed and dangerous. The suspicion may arise from the totality of circumstances observed during the stop even without separate suspicion of criminal activity by the passenger.
An anonymous tip that merely describes appearance and location without predictive details or other reliability indicators does not supply reasonable suspicion for a stop or pat-down. Courts require additional corroboration or predictive information demonstrating inside knowledge before authorizing the frisk.
…him. The officer had reasonable grounds to believe that Terry was armed and dangerous, and the search was limited in scope to a pat-down of outer clothing for weapons. The Fourth Amendment does not require that police officers, when they lack probable cause to arrest, must stand by and allow a suspect to draw a gun and…
…Court of Appeals reversed his conviction on the ground that the search of the vehicle was invalid, holding that the “Terry pat-down” of the vehicle was not valid because the officers had not observed any suspicious conduct on the part of the respondent that would warrant a reasonable belief that he was armed and…
…on articulable facts, may detain a suspect briefly for purposes of limited questioning and, in so doing, may conduct a brief "frisk" of the suspect to protect himself from concealed weapons. See, e. g. , United States v. Brignoni-Ponce , 422 U. S. 873, 880-884 (1975); Adams v. Williams , 407 U. S. 143, 145-146…
…or public safety is immediately at issue, that concern is sufficiently alleviated by the officer’s ability to perform a limited patdown
An officer may seize an object only if its incriminating character is immediately apparent from the initial touch. Any further manipulation beyond what is necessary to determine whether the item is a weapon exceeds the scope of a lawful pat-down and renders the seizure invalid.
Reasonable suspicion supported by specific and articulable facts that the person is involved in criminal activity permits a brief detention. The same facts must also support a reasonable belief that the person is armed and dangerous before an officer may conduct the limited pat-down for weapons.
The doctrine permits seizure of contraband whose character is immediately apparent during a lawful pat-down. Officers may not squeeze or manipulate the object to develop probable cause beyond the initial tactile impression.