Dawson v. State
2011 WL 1434907, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 5356, 58 So. 3d 419 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Fourth Amendment, a law enforcement officer's observation of a person repeatedly placing their hands in their pockets, even when combined with nervousness and presence in a high-crime area, is insufficient, without more, to establish the reasonable suspicion that the person is armed and dangerous required to justify a pat-down search.
Facts:
- At approximately 11:00 p.m., two Hillsborough County Sheriff's deputies were patrolling a high-crime area in an undercover vehicle.
- The deputies observed Jason Keith Dawson stumbling and walking along the fog line of a highway.
- The deputies exited their vehicle, approached Dawson, and asked to speak with him.
- During the encounter, Dawson appeared nervous.
- According to the officers, Dawson repeatedly put his hands into his baggy pants and jacket pockets, even after being instructed several times not to do so.
- The officers could not see any bulges in Dawson's clothing that would indicate a weapon.
Procedural Posture:
- The State charged Jason Keith Dawson in trial court with armed trafficking, felon in possession of a firearm, and obstructing an officer.
- Dawson filed a motion to suppress the evidence found during the search, arguing the pat-down was unconstitutional.
- The trial court denied Dawson's motion to suppress.
- Dawson entered a guilty plea, but specifically reserved the right to appeal the trial court's denial of his motion.
- Dawson (appellant) appealed the trial court's judgment to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District (an intermediate appellate court).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a person's repeated placement of their hands into their pockets and apparent nervousness, while in a high-crime area, provide law enforcement with the reasonable suspicion necessary to conduct a pat-down search for weapons under the Fourth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Morris
No. A person's refusal to keep their hands out of their pockets, standing alone, is insufficient to establish a reasonable suspicion that they are armed with a dangerous weapon. For a pat-down search to be valid, an officer must identify objective, articulable facts indicating that the person is armed and dangerous. Here, the officers' only justification was Dawson's refusal to keep his hands out of his pockets and a subjective belief he 'could have contraband or a weapon,' which is unsupported by any identifiable objective facts like a visible bulge. The court explicitly stated that the ultimate discovery of a weapon cannot be used to justify the search; the focus must remain on the facts known to the officers before the search commenced. Citing precedents like Ray v. State, the court concluded that routine pat-down searches based on a general concern for officer safety are not constitutionally permitted.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the objective standard for reasonable suspicion required for a weapons pat-down search under Terry v. Ohio. It clarifies that common, ambiguous behaviors like nervousness or placing hands in one's pockets, even when occurring in a high-crime area, are not sufficient on their own to justify a frisk. The ruling sets a clear boundary against allowing generalized officer safety concerns to override an individual's Fourth Amendment rights, thereby preventing 'routine' pat-downs based on subjective hunches rather than specific, articulable facts suggesting the presence of a weapon. This holding serves to protect individuals from intrusive searches based on officer speculation.
