Pat-Down Searches in Florida: What Officers Can—and Can’t—Do

Florida law permits a limited weapons frisk during a lawful stop—but only when an officer reasonably suspects the person is armed and dangerous.
Below we explain when a pat-down is allowed, the “plain-feel” limit, what happens during traffic stops, and how we challenge unlawful frisks.

1) What is a “Terry” stop and pat-down?

The U.S. Supreme Court allows officers to stop someone briefly on reasonable suspicion of criminal activity and to pat down outer clothing only if they reasonably suspect the person is armed and dangerous. See
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968).
During a frisk, officers may seize a weapon discovered by feel; they may not squeeze, slide, or manipulate items to search for drugs. See
Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (1993).

2) Florida’s Stop & Frisk statute

Florida codifies Terry in the Stop and Frisk Law, §901.151, Fla. Stat..
It authorizes a temporary detention on reasonable indications of a crime and a limited frisk for weapons when the officer has probable cause to believe the person is armed and dangerous. Evidence found beyond those limits is not admissible under the statute.

3) When a pat-down is (and isn’t) allowed

• Reasonable suspicion (armed & dangerous) required. A routine stop doesn’t automatically authorize a frisk, but furtive movements or evasive behavior can contribute to reasonable suspicion.
  See Brown v. State, 863 So. 2d 459 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004).
• Traffic stops. Officers may order drivers out of the car (Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (1977)) and may frisk a passenger if there is reasonable suspicion the passenger is armed and dangerous
  (Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323 (2009)).
• Vehicle “protective sweep.” If officers reasonably believe a weapon may be within a suspect’s immediate reach, they can check areas of a vehicle for weapons.
  See the U.S. Supreme Court’s vehicle-frisk rule in Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032 (1983) and its Florida application in
  State v. Dilyerd, 467 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 1985).
• Plain-feel limit. If the incriminating nature of an item is immediately apparent on lawful touch, it can be seized; otherwise, officers may not manipulate the item to figure it out.
  See Ray v. State, 849 So. 2d 1222 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) and
  Crawford v. State, 980 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007).
• Good facts, bad frisk. Even during a valid stop, courts suppress evidence where the frisk exceeds a weapons check or rests on a hunch. See, e.g.,
  June v. State, 79 So. 3d 1085 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012).

4) Quick comparison: Allowed vs. Not Allowed

5) Helpful context: What the data shows

• In a national survey, about 19% of people involved in street stops were searched or frisked. The report also notes that searched persons were less likely to view the stop as legitimate.
  Source: U.S. DOJ, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Police Behavior During Traffic and Street Stops, 2011 (Police-Public Contact Survey).
  Read the BJS report (PDF).
• During traffic stops, the same BJS report found that search rates are lower than street-stop frisk rates, and that white drivers were searched at lower rates than Black and Hispanic drivers.
  BJS, PPCS 2011.
• Florida does not publish a single, statewide public tally that isolates “pat-down” or “frisk” counts across all agencies. When we need empirical support in a case, we often combine department-level stop data (where available) with national baselines like the BJS PPCS and peer-reviewed research (for example, the Stanford Open Policing Project’s multi-state analyses).
  See the research paper by Pierson et al., A large-scale analysis of racial disparities in police stops (2019).
  Read the study (PDF).

6) Defense strategies that work

• Challenge the basis for the frisk. Force the State to identify the specific facts that made your client “armed and dangerous.” Nervousness alone isn’t enough.
• Enforce the plain-feel rule. If the officer manipulated the item or admits they “figured it out” only after squeezing it, move to suppress under Dickerson and Florida DCA cases like Ray and Crawford.
• Vehicle access matters. If your client was handcuffed or away from the car, a “protective” vehicle frisk is much harder to justify.
• Use video and timing. Body-worn camera often shows whether the frisk preceded any safety concern—or how long the “pat-down” lasted.
• Link to other search issues. Inevitable discovery and consent are frequently argued—see our explainer on the
  Inevitable Discovery Doctrine in Florida.

Sources (primary law & references)

• Florida Stop & Frisk Law: §901.151, Fla. Stat.
• Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968): LII / Corn_
  

Share: