stop and frisk searches

One of these jurisprudential exceptionsto search warrants is "stop and frisk". "Stop and frisk" searches are often confused with searches incidental to lawful arrests under the Rules of Court.63 Searches incidental to a lawful arrest require that a crime be committed in flagrante delicto, and the search conducted within the vicinity and within reach by the person arrested is done to ensure that there are no weapons, as well as to preserve the evidence.64

On the other hand, "stop and frisk"searches are conducted to prevent the occurrence of a crime. For instance, the search in Posadas v. Court of Appeals65 was similar "to a ‘stop and frisk’ situation whose object is either to determine the identity of a suspicious individual or to maintain the status quomomentarily while the police officer seeks to obtain more information."66 This court stated that the "stop and frisk" search should be used "[w]hen dealing with a rapidly unfolding and potentially criminal situation in the city streets where unarguably there is no time to secure . . . a search warrant."67

The search involved in this case was initially a "stop and frisk" search, but it did not comply with all the requirements of reasonability required by the Constitution.

"Stop and frisk" searches (sometimes referred to as Terrysearches68) are necessary for law enforcement. That is, law enforcers should be given the legal arsenal to prevent the commission of offenses. However, this should be balanced with the need to protect the privacy of citizens in accordance with Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution.

The balance lies in the concept of"suspiciousness" present in the situation where the police officer finds himself or herself in. This may be undoubtedly based on the experience ofthe police officer. Experienced police officers have personal experience dealing with criminals and criminal behavior. Hence, they should have the ability to discern — based on facts that they themselves observe — whether an individual is acting in a suspicious manner. Clearly, a basic criterion would be that the police officer, with his or her personal knowledge, must observe the facts leading to the suspicion of an illicit act.

In Manalili v. Court of Appeals,69 the police officers were initially informed about a place frequented by people abusing drugs.70 When they arrived, one of the police officers saw a man with "reddish eyes and [who was] walking in a swaying manner."71 The suspicion increased when the man avoided the police officers.72 These observations led the police officers to conclude that the man was high on drugs.73 These were sufficient facts observed by the police officers "to stop[the] petitioner [and] investigate."74

In People v. Solayao,75 police officers noticed a man who appeared drunk.76 This man was also "wearing a camouflage uniform or a jungle suit."77 Upon seeing the police, the man fled.78 His flight added to the suspicion.79After stopping him, the police officers found an unlicensed "homemade firearm"80 in his possession.81 This court ruled that "[u]nder the circumstances, the government agents could not possibly have procured a search warrant first."82 This was also a valid search.

In these cases, the police officers using their senses observed facts that led to the suspicion. Seeing a man with reddish eyes and walking in a swaying manner, based on their experience, is indicative of a person who uses dangerous and illicit drugs. A drunk civilian in guerrilla wear is probably hiding something as well.