Opinion ID: 2632369
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Scope of Search Allowed under Kennedy

Text: Glossbrener next argues that Kennedy only authorizes an officer to stop and frisk an occupant of a vehicle based on officer safety concerns, but does not permit the officer to search the interior of the vehicle. He bases this argument on the facts of Kennedy as well as the distinction made in Kennedy between the scope of a search authorized by officer safety concerns and the scope of a search authorized incident to arrest in State v. Stroud, 106 Wash.2d 144, 720 P.2d 436 (1986). The State responds that Kennedy allows an officer to search for weapons within the investigatee's immediate control, including the passenger compartment of a vehicle, if articulable facts give rise to a concern [that] the suspect has hidden a weapon. State's Suppl. Br. at 9. In Kennedy, this court evaluated whether a Terry frisk could be expanded to include the passenger compartment of a vehicle under article I, section 7 of the Washington Constitution based on officer safety concerns. 107 Wash.2d at 9-13, 726 P.2d 445. [7] There, the officer pulled Kennedy over because the officer suspected that he had just purchased marijuana. Id. at 3, 726 P.2d 445. Before stopping the car, the officer observed Kennedy lean forward as if to put something under the seat. Id. Once they both stopped, the officer approached the car and asked Kennedy to get out. Id. Kennedy complied and stepped to the rear of the car. Id. The officer looked into the car to identify the passenger and then reached under the front seat. Id. He found a plastic bag containing marijuana. Id. at 3-4, 726 P.2d 445. In upholding the search, we held that an officer [may] make a limited search of the passenger compartment to assure a suspect person in the car does not have access to a weapon within the suspect's or passenger's area of control. Id. at 13, 726 P.2d 445. The court was careful to distinguish between the scope of a search authorized incident to arrest in Stroud and the scope of the search permitted based on officer safety, concluding that the latter allowed only for a more limited intrusion because a Terry stop does not present the same dangers to the police officer or to evidence of a crime. Id. at 12, 88 S.Ct. 1868. The court thus stated that the scope of the search should be sufficient to assure the officer's safety. This means that the officer may search for weapons within the investigatee's immediate control. Id. Although the court indicated that the area to be searched may be expanded to include those areas within the immediate control of any passenger because a passenger presents a similar danger to the approaching officer, it did not necessarily premise the search of the passenger compartment of the vehicle on the fact that a passenger remained in the vehicle. Id. at 12-13. The Court of Appeals has interpreted Kennedy to allow a search of the passenger compartment of a vehicle based on officer safety even though the driver was outside the vehicle and no passengers were inside the vehicle. State v. Larson, 88 Wash.App. 849, 946 P.2d 1212 (1997). In Larson, the officer signaled Larson to pull over after he had observed Larson speeding on Interstate 5. Id. at 851, 946 P.2d 1212. Larson, however, neither pulled over nor slowed down. Id. The officer observed Larson leaning forward and making movements toward the floorboard of his truck. Id. After traveling some distance, Larson finally exited the freeway and eventually stopped in a hotel parking lot. Id. At the officer's direction, Larson got out of his truck. Id. The officer patted down Larson's clothing but did not allow Larson to reenter his truck. Id. The officer then stuck his head into the cab of the truck through the open door and noticed a syringe, blackened spoon and a cotton ball in a pocket in front of the driver's seat. Id. Upon picking the items up, he noticed a paper bindle containing heroin. Id. The Court of Appeals rejected Larson's argument that his movements inside the truck did not give rise to a reasonable concern for officer safety once he had been removed from the truck. Id. at 856-57, 946 P.2d 1212. It found that the fact that no passenger remained in the truck, as had been the case in Kennedy, was not dispositive on the issue of whether the officer had reasonable concern for his safety. Id. at 856, 946 P.2d 1212. The court instead reasoned that the circumstances and purpose of a traffic stop may justify a limited search of the passenger compartment of a vehicle even though neither the driver nor a passenger remains in the vehicle. Id. The court concluded that because the officer was conducting a routine traffic stop, which required him to obtain the driver's vehicle registration, Larson would eventually have to gain access to his truck in order to obtain the registration. Id. Thus the officer's concern for his safety was valid. Id. at 857, 946 P.2d 1212. We agree with the reasoning in Larson and conclude that Kennedy did not limit an officer's ability to search the passenger compartment of a vehicle based on officer safety concerns to only situations in which either the driver or passenger remain in the vehicle. Instead, a court should evaluate the entire circumstances of the traffic stop in determining whether the search was reasonably based on officer safety concerns.