Yo Denny!
I wondered if anybody would ask about frisks. A frisk is NOT a search. It is less than a search and for a different reason than the multiple reasons behind a search. Definition: a frisk of a person is when an officer pats down the outermost layer of clothing of a suspect to see if s/he can detect a weapon. This does not include emptying the suspect's pockets, removing shoes, etc. A vehicle can also be frisked for weapons on a car stop. This is when the officer looks at or into any open and unlocked place in the car which the suspect could reach while seated (to make sure s/he can't reach a weapon during the interview). Both of these frisks, if they are going to be done properly, should be done at the beginning of an encounter with a suspect because the purpose is to allow the officer to conduct a street interview/investigation without fear of being stabbed or shot in the process. The courts have consistently given officers on a legal, justified stop wide latitude when deciding when to conduct a frisk. Basically, any time an officer can describe a factor or factors that make them concerned for their safety while conducting a stop, they are allowed to conduct a frisk. In recent years state courts and the Supreme Court have even ruled that officers can frisk occupants of a car in any car stop without additional grounds beyond the fact that the car has been stopped for investigation. The consistent reasoning behind this is that car stops are so inherently dangerous that no additional grounds for concern is required before conducting a frisk. There are many, many reasons an officer would legitimately be concerned about weapons and therefore be justified in conducting a frisk: the suspect fled from police, the suspect is recognized by the officer as having an open arrest warrant, the officer saw the pedestrian or driver commit an offense of some kind, the suspect matches the description of someone who just committed a crime, the suspect has a bulge in his pocket or waistband that might be a weapon, the outline of an actual weapon can be seen under the clothing, the suspect has assaulted police in the past, the suspect is known to the officer for having committed violent crime in the past, and so on.
The officer may go into a suspect's pocket, sock (above the ankle), cap or waistband to pull out a suspicious object he felt through the clothing and is concerned may be a weapon or used as an improvised weapon against the officer. Again, there are many, many things an officer may see or feel in that outer layer of clothing that raise his suspicion and therefore legally justify him/her removing the item to examine it or at least put it out of the suspect's reach during the interview. Criminals are extremely creative in concealing and improvising weapons, so officers remove from the clothing many, many items the average person would say was unjustified because the item was clearly not a weapon. For instance, I remove every cigarette pack and cell phone I come across, because companies sell small firearms and stun guns disguised to look and feel like a real cigarette pack or cell phone. It's the same with a key ring. Just the keys themselves held in a fist can be an effective weapon, but I don't think I'll ever quit seeing new weapons on key rings I've never seen before. The same is true of credit cards and other items of the same dimensions. There are some wicked razor weapons hidden such cards. This subject is huge.
A frisk is not a search for drugs or evidence of a crime, however, drugs and evidence are sometimes discovered while conducting a frisk for weapons. For instance, crack and heroin are often hidden in cigarette packs. I've pulled out cigarette packs to make sure that's exactly what they are (not guns), opened them to make sure, only to see narcotics inside among the cigarettes. Judges and juries, not to mention defense lawyers, are naturally suspicious of these discoveries, so the officer better have a good, believable explanation how s/he found a tiny packet of heroin on a frisk. Cases are often thrown out because the judge or jury think the officer conducted an illegal search, instead of a frisk.
Here's a disturbing video of a rookie police officer who is conducting an interview of young man who has been involved in a domestic dispute with his girlfriend. The officer doesn't conduct a frisk at the beginning of the interview like he should have, but after talking to him for many minutes tells the young man he wants to frisk him for weapons. The officer uses poor tactics to initiate the frisk. Sadly, the officer paid for his mistakes with his life when the suspect who had had a revolver in his pocket the whole time shoots the rookie officer to death. That incident is exactly why officers conduct frisks. Caution: adult video.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2911112/Police-body-camera-video-shows-moment-domestic-violence-suspect-suddenly-pulls-gun-fatally-fire-24-year-old-rookie-officer.htmlito=video_player_click