## Facts

- Seattle police obtained a warrant to search a residence for narcotics; the warrant named no persons.
- Officers entered the residence and found the resident, Steven Arthur Thompson (a visitor), a teenage girl, and a small child in the living room.
- An officer directed the two adult men to place their hands on their heads while the warrant was executed.
- A narcotics officer who had not reviewed the warrant or affidavit conducted a patdown frisk of Thompson for weapons.
- During the patdown, the officer felt a small bulge in Thompson’s shirt pocket and, based on experience, believed it was a balloon containing heroin.
- The officer testified he did not believe the bulge was a weapon and removed it; the balloon contained heroin.
- Thompson was charged with heroin possession; the trial court denied suppression and convicted him after a bench trial.

## Issues

1. Whether officers executing a premises search warrant that did not name Thompson could lawfully frisk Thompson, a person present at the residence, absent individualized suspicion that he was armed and dangerous.
2. Whether, even if a patdown were lawful, the officer could remove an object from Thompson’s pocket when the officer did not believe it was a weapon but believed it was contraband.

## Decision

- The Washington Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and vacated Thompson’s conviction.
- The court held officers could take reasonable safety measures to secure the scene (including temporarily controlling occupants’ movements).
- The frisk of Thompson violated the Fourth Amendment and Washington Constitution article I, section 7 because officers lacked specific, articulable facts that Thompson was armed and dangerous.
- The removal of the pocket item was unlawful because the officer admitted he did not think the object was a weapon, converting a protective frisk into an evidentiary search.
- The heroin was required to be suppressed; without it, the conviction could not stand.

## Legal Principles

- A premises search warrant does not authorize the search or frisk of all persons present; a frisk requires individualized, articulable suspicion that the particular person is armed and dangerous.
- Officers executing a warrant may impose reasonable, temporary controls on occupants to protect officer safety, distinct from searching a person.
- A *Terry* frisk is limited to discovering weapons; once an officer determines an object is not a weapon, further intrusion to seize suspected contraband exceeds the frisk’s lawful scope.
- Evidence obtained from an unconstitutional search must be suppressed, and a conviction based on that evidence must be vacated.

## Conclusion

The court held that while officers may secure occupants during execution of a narcotics premises warrant, they may not frisk a person not named in the warrant without individualized suspicion, and they may not remove a non-weapon object from a pocket during a patdown based on a belief it is contraband; the heroin was suppressed and the conviction vacated.


State v. Broadnax, 98 Wn.2d 289, 654 P.2d 96 (Wash. 1982)