Dawson v. State - 58 So. 3d 419 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

Rule:

For a weapons pat-down search to be valid, an officer must identify objective facts indicating that the person detained is armed and dangerous.

Facts:

While patrolling, the officers spotted defendant Jason Keith Dawson walking along Dale Mabry Highway. He was walking along the fog line on the road, but he was stumbling. The officers asked Dawson to speak to them. At this point, Dawson appeared nervous. The officers testified that while they were speaking with Dawson, Dawson repeatedly put his hands into his pants and jacket pockets, even after being instructed several times not to do so. Since one of the officers believed that Dawson could have contraband or a weapon, he conducted a pat-down of Dawson. Ecstasy pills and a gun were discovered in Dawson’s pockets. Dawson was charged with the crimes of armed trafficking in a controlled substance, felon in possession of a firearm, and obstructing or opposing an officer without violence. In his suppression motion, Dawson argued that a pat-down search may only be conducted if the officers have a reasonable belief that the person detained was armed with a dangerous weapon and that routine pat-down searches based on general officer safety concerns were not constitutionally permitted. The trial court denied the motion. Dawson then pleaded guilty to the charges while specifically reserving the right to appeal the denial.

Issue:

Should the suppression motion have been granted on the basis of the unlawful pat-down search? 

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The court reversed the trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion to suppress. According to the court, the only justification provided by the officers was the fact that defendant refused to comply with their requests to keep his hands out of his pockets. That fact—standing alone—was insufficient to establish reasonable suspicion. A comment made by one officer that he believed defendant could have contraband or a weapon was unsupported by any identifiable objective facts to lead him to that conclusion. The officers lacked reasonable suspicion to conduct a pat-down search of defendant, and the trial court erred by denying the suppression motion.