Opinion ID: 2310432
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Protective Search Proper

Text: It is well established that investigative detentions are often fraught with danger to police officers. Robertson v. State, Del.Supr., 596 A.2d 1345, 1353 (1991). See also Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. at 23-24, 88 S.Ct. at 1881. It is also well established that when an investigative detention results in a forced encounter, the officer's right to take suitable measures for his own safety follow[s] automatically. Robertson v. State, 596 A.2d at 1353. The sole issue in this case is the scope of a protective search incident to what the Superior Court determined to be a lawful Terry investigatory detention. See Bromwell v. State, Del.Supr., 427 A.2d 884, 890 (1981). When the search of a person, properly detained for an investigatory purpose, is established to have been made for reasons of safety, this Court has held that the permissible scope of a safety search should be determined by balancing the competing interests of the officer's safety and the degree of intrusion upon a person's privacy rights. Id. at 890-91. This Court has also held that it is unreasonable and unrealistic to impose an inflexible limit upon a protective weapon search of a lawfully detained suspect to a clothing frisk, regardless of the attendant circumstances. Id. at 891. Consequently, the circumstances which gave rise to the safety search in each case must be the sine qua non of judicial analysis. In determining the lawfulness of a protective search for weapons, following a proper Terry investigatory detention, this Court has recently stated: [T]here must be a narrowly drawn authority to permit a reasonable search for weapons for the protection of the police officer, where he has reason to believe that he is dealing with an armed and dangerous individual, regardless of whether he has probable cause to arrest the individual for a crime. The officer need not be absolutely certain that the individual is armed; the issue is whether a reasonably prudent man in the circumstances would be warranted in the belief that his safety or that of others was in danger. Robertson v. State, 596 A.2d at 1352 (quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. at 27, 88 S.Ct. at 1883 (emphasis added)). In applying that standard in this appeal, we must determine whether the facts available to Officer Dempsey, at the moment of the search of Morrow's left front pants pocket, would warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief `that the action taken was appropriate.' Id. at 1352 (quoting Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 112, 98 S.Ct. 330, 334, 54 L.Ed.2d 331 (1977)). See also Goldsmith v. State, Del.Supr., 405 A.2d 109, 113 (1979). In the case sub judice, Officer Dempsey first saw Morrow walking together with someone fitting the description of a man believed to be in possession of a gun. Morrow was ordered to stop walking but refused. Officer Dempsey then observed Morrow place his hand into his pants pocket. Officer Dempsey attempted to pat-down Morrow. He not only resisted but tried to prevent Officer Dempsey from touching the pocket of his pants. During this pat-down, Officer Dempsey felt a hard object in Morrow's pants pocket, which Officer Dempsey believed, but was not certain, could have been the handle of a small gun. Fearing that Morrow might have a weapon, Officer Dempsey reached into Morrow's pocket and removed the object. The record reflects that Morrow had been properly detained. See Bromwell v. State, 427 A.2d at 890. The record also reflects that since Morrow's reaction to a proper Terry investigatory stop had resulted in a forced encounter, Officer Dempsey was reasonable in believing his safety was in danger. Accordingly, the record reflects that Officer Dempsey did not exceed the limited scope of a lawful Terry protective search for weapons, during a confrontational investigatory detention, by reaching into Morrow's pocket and removing a hard object he reasonably believed could have been a small caliber gun. See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. at 16, 88 S.Ct. at 1877; Robertson v. State, 596 A.2d at 1353; Bromwell v. State, 427 A.2d at 891; State v. Wausnock, Del.Supr., 303 A.2d 636, 637 (1973); Nash v. State, 295 A.2d at 717; Brown v. State, Del.Supr., 295 A.2d 575, 577-78 (1972).