Court Opinion

ID: 9633710
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 11:57:31.577615+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:08:40.319453
License: Public Domain

FELDMAN, Vice Chief Justice,
dissenting.
I am unable to agree with the court that the pat-down search of defendant’s jacket is authorized by Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968).
*357Terry authorizes a protective search for weapons incident to a valid investigative stop. The record does not support the conclusion that the officers’ pat-down was a “protective search.” As the court of appeals points out, “this [is not] a situation in which the officer was reasonably apprehensive about his safety.” Vasquez, 165 Ariz. at 44, 796 P.2d at 476. No violence had been reported and none was evident when the officers arrived. Defendant and his wife were not quarreling. The officers evidently felt there was no need for a protective search of any kind because they made no attempt to search defendant when they arrived on the scene. Only after searching the jacket that defendant was not wearing, and consequently arresting defendant, did the officers bother to search the vest, pants, and shoes that he was wearing. Reporter’s Transcript (RT) at 21, 22. Self-protection was obviously not the motive for the search. If the officers were concerned about their safety, they could have protected themselves by not offering to give the jacket to defendant. In no sense were these officers, as the majority contends, “compelled to act at their peril.” Id. at 522.
The majority relies on Terry, but this search cannot be upheld under that case, which requires a three-fold predicate to stop and search. The first is that there is reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot. 392 U.S. at 30, 88 S.Ct. at 1884. There was no report of violence here and no suspicion of other criminal activity. Defendant exhibited no threatening behavior toward his wife or the officers. When the officers arrived, in fact, the couple appeared to be “talking,” RT at 26, though it appeared the wife had been crying and defendant was “emotionally upset.” RT at 14. The officers stated they had no intention to arrest or even cite defendant for anything. RT at 28.
Terry requires, second, that there be a reasonable suspicion that the individual “may be armed and presently dangerous.” 392 U.S. at 30, 88 S.Ct. at 1884. As noted, there is no evidence in the record to satisfy this requirement.1 The officers did not testify that they had any such suspicion about this defendant. In fact, they said he had been cooperative throughout the investigation. RT at 23.
The third Terry requirement is that there be nothing in the initial stages of the encounter that dispels the officer’s reasonable fear for safety. 392 U.S. at 30, 88 S.Ct. at 1884. This requirement is also not met in the present case. The officers had so little fear for their safety before the jacket incident that they had not bothered to search defendant.
No other reason justified the search. The officers did not intend to arrest defendant, so there was no search incident to an arrest. Cf. State v. DeRosier, 133 Ariz. 154, 650 P.2d 456 (1982). The investigating officer later said he intended to offer defendant a ride but he did not tell defendant he was required to ride in the patrol car, nor had defendant requested a ride in the patrol car. RT at 24. Thus, the exception recognized in State v. Smith, 112 Ariz. 531, 544 P.2d 213 (1975), allowing a pat-down search before an individual is to be transported in a police vehicle, was inapplicable. In any event, there is considerable question as to the officers’ intention to transport defendant. As the court of appeals points out, no such intention was ever articulated “until the hearing on the motion to suppress.” Vasquez, 165 Ariz. at 44, 796 P.2d at 476.
Nor can the search be justified by consent. One of the officers testified at the suppression hearing that he told defendant he was going to search the jacket and proceeded to search it. There is no evidence in the record as to whether defendant objected, or even had an opportunity to object. RT at 18. Moreover, the officer also stated that defendant spoke only bro*358ken English and that the language problem was so great he was unable to investigate the argument, RT at 25, or administer Miranda warnings. RT at 21-22. No claim of consent was made by the state nor was consent even mentioned by the trial court in its ruling on the motion to suppress. RT at 38-39.
On this record, I believe the court of appeals was correct in concluding that the pat-down search violated the fourth amendment. Warrantless searches are per se unreasonable, and Terry is intended to be a narrow exception. The majority opinion goes much too far. Of course, the fourth amendment does not prevent officers from protecting themselves, but where self-protection is not the issue, as the officers’ conduct in the field abundantly demonstrates in this case, we must honor the constitution’s prohibition against warrant-less searches.

. It is axiomatic that the specific and articulable facts required to establish reasonable suspicion concerning a particular individual must be available to the officer at the moment of the search or seizure. Generalities cannot suffice. “This demand for specificity in the information upon which police action is predicated is the central teaching of this Court’s Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.” Terry, 392 U.S. at 21 n. 18, 88 S.Ct. at 1880 n. 18.