Can police frisk a suspect based solely on bulging pockets? State v. Lafond Explained

In State v. Lafond, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether police officers can conduct a Terry frisk based solely on observing bulging pockets, providing important guidance for Utah appellate practitioners defending against unlawful searches.

Background and Facts

Officer Salis stopped Lafond’s vehicle for speeding and an unlighted license plate. During the stop, he observed green particles that appeared to be marijuana in the vehicle’s console and obtained consent to search the car. When Lafond exited the vehicle, she carried two small purses from the front seat and placed them in her front pants pockets, creating visible bulges. Officer Salis then conducted a pat-down search, which revealed methamphetamine in her pocket. Lafond moved to suppress the evidence.

Key Legal Issues

The court addressed whether Officer Salis had reasonable suspicion that Lafond was armed and dangerous to justify the Terry frisk. Under Terry v. Ohio, an officer must point to specific and articulable facts that reasonably warrant the intrusion. The officer cannot rely on mere hunches or unparticularized suspicions.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court held that the frisk was unconstitutional. While acknowledging that bulging pockets can justify a Terry frisk if they appear to contain weapons, the court found that Officer Salis watched Lafond transfer small purses from the vehicle to her pockets. These bags were described as “a small coin purse” and “a small purse-like bag” that were pliable enough to fit in pockets. The court emphasized that pockets were made to carry things and rejected the proposition that officers may frisk suspects merely because pockets contain something.

Practice Implications

This decision provides crucial guidance for challenging Terry frisks. Defense counsel should focus on whether officers observed the creation of pocket bulges and whether those bulges appeared consistent with weapons rather than ordinary items. The court distinguished cases where bulges appeared to be weapons from this case where innocuous items created the bulges under the officer’s observation.