Opinion ID: 1466593
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: officer had reasonable suspicion for terry frisk

Text: Mr. Goff also claims that because Officer Easley admitted at the suppression hearing that Mr. Goff did not make any furtive movements indicating he was reaching for a weapon, the officer lacked reasonable suspicion under Terry to frisk Mr. Goff, and the vending machine key found on his person was inadmissible. His argument is meritless. [5] Once a valid stop is made, police officers are permitted to pat a suspect's outer clothing for weapons if the officer observes unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot and that the persons with whom he is dealing may be armed and presently dangerous.... Terry, 392 U.S. at 30, 88 S.Ct. 1868. The officer must have more than a hunch; he or she must have a reasonable, particularized suspicion that the suspect is armed. Rushing, 935 S.W.2d at 32. The decision whether this standard was met is based on an objective standard, asking what a hypothetical officer in those same circumstances would have believed. 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. Id. See also State v. Epperson, 571 S.W.2d 260, 264 (Mo. banc 1978) (accord); United States v. Roggeman, 279 F.3d 573, 581 n. 5 (8th Cir.2002) (accord). The trial court did not err in holding that the facts set out above as providing reasonable suspicion for the stop, combined with the outstanding warrant for Mr. Trent, the latter's arrest, and Officer Easley's need to search the vehicle, would have led a reasonably prudent officer in Officer Easley's position to believe, as Officer Easley testified he did believe, that he needed to pat down Mr. Goff for his safety.