Court Opinion

ID: 9535021
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:44:42.075585+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:33:09.538006
License: Public Domain

Dore, J.
(dissenting) — I cannot agree with the majority's conclusion that the frisk of Smith was impermissible under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 20 L. Ed. 2d 889, 88 S. Ct. 1868 (1968). The majority implies that the sole ground upon which the police officers based their frisk was petitioner's presence in a high-crime area. While an individual's mere presence in an area known to be dangerous is not alone a sufficient ground to justify a frisk, I believe the police officers had far greater justification for this limited search.
A police officer may conduct a protective search when there is reason to believe the suspect may be armed and dangerous. Terry, at 30; Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 32 L. Ed. 2d 612, 92 S. Ct. 1921 (1972). Smith was not only present in a dangerous area. He also matched the description of an escaped juvenile. Further, Officer Conder stated that his partner had observed a "suspicious bulge" on Smith. In its ruling on the motion to suppress, the trial court noted that Officer Ninomiya had "observed a bulb in the [petitioner's] coat." This combination of factors, articulated by the police officers, clearly indicates that they were warranted in believing Smith may have been armed and dangerous. See Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 111-12, 54 L. Ed. 2d 331, 98 S. Ct. 330 (1977). I would hold the police were justified in making this limited protective search out of a valid concern for their own safety.
*457I would affirm.
Dimmick, J., concurs with Dore, J.