Opinion ID: 2600016
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Court of Appeals Properly Considered the Officers' Subjective Belief Concerning Their Safety and the Purpose for the Pat-Down Search of Mr. Baker

Text: ¶ 48 The State argues that the court of appeals placed undue weight on the officers' lack of subjective fear and unlawful actual purpose to conduct the pat-down search. Specifically, it argues that while the officers did not testify to being afraid, they testified that traffic stops always present safety concerns, particularly when the passengers possess knives. The State argues that the court of appeals invalidated the search because the officers had an improper purpose when conducting the searchthey were looking for drugs not weapons. ¶ 49 Although a pat-down search will not be invalidated merely because the officers on the scene did not actually fear for their safety, we give an officer's subjective factual determination based on experience and specialized training ... due weight as part of the objective analysis. Warren, 2003 UT 36, ¶ 20, 78 P.3d 590. An officer's generalized concern about the inherent dangerousness of traffic stops does not support an objectively reasonable belief that a particular suspect detained during a traffic stop is armed and dangerous. Id. at ¶ 29. Additionally, an officer's subjective understanding of the law is irrelevant. State v. Applegate, 2008 UT 63, ¶ 20, 194 P.3d 925. ¶ 50 As an important factor in its totality of the circumstances determination, the court of appeals noted that all three officers [on the scene during the traffic stop] testified as to having no heightened fear for their safety. State v. Baker, 2008 UT App 115, ¶ 18, 182 P.3d 935. The court also mentioned that the officers were searching for drugs when they performed the search but only in the context of explaining the officers' subjective lack of fear. Id. When the facts that support reasonable suspicion are as tenuous as they are in this case, the fact that the officers did not actually fear for their safety can weigh heavily on the ultimate determination that there was no objective reason to believe that Mr. Baker posed a threat to their safety. The court of appeals properly took the officers' subjective lack of fear into account when evaluating the totality of the circumstances.