State Amber C. May

Amber May was a passenger in a vehicle stopped for speeding; officer learned May was on probation and ordered both occupants out to conduct a probation search of May.
Before searching the vehicle, the officer conducted a frisk of May and discovered methamphetamine on her person.
May was charged with possession of a controlled substance and filed a motion to suppress the evidence recovered during the frisk.
At the suppression hearing the officer testified he observed May and the driver acting extremely nervous and fidgety, and that May made furtive movements (avoiding eye contact, bouncing her feet, shifting weight, turning away) that suggested possible concealment or reaching.
The district court found the officer articulated sufficient facts to reasonably suspect May might be armed and dangerous, denied the suppression motion, and May entered a conditional guilty plea reserving the right to appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the frisk was justified under Terry for officer safety	State: Officer observed nervousness and furtive movements reasonably suggesting May might be armed and dangerous	May: Officer relied on a general assumption everyone is armed and believed she was on stimulants; no objective basis to think she was armed	Court: Frisk justified—officer articulated specific facts (nervousness + furtive movements + stimulant-related erratic behavior) supporting reasonable suspicion May might be armed and dangerous

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (establishes stop-and-frisk rule: frisk justified by reasonable suspicion that person is armed and dangerous)
Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (1971) (warrantless searches presumptively unreasonable absent exception)
Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491 (1983) (reasonable suspicion justifies investigatory stop)
State v. Henage, 143 Idaho 655 (2007) (officer must connect observed behavior to a risk to safety to justify frisk)
State v. Babb, 133 Idaho 890 (Ct. App. 1999) (stop and frisk are separate analyses; frisk requires specific, articulable facts suggesting danger)
State v. Fleenor, 133 Idaho 552 (Ct. App. 1999) (assess frisk based on facts known to officer and reasonable inferences from totality of circumstances)
State v. Ferreira, 133 Idaho 474 (Ct. App. 1999) (warrant requirement and exceptions; reasonable suspicion standard for stops)
State v. DuValt, 131 Idaho 550 (1998) (reasonable and articulable suspicion justifies stop)
State v. Atkinson, 128 Idaho 559 (Ct. App. 1996) (appellate review standard for suppression rulings)
State v. Valdez-Molina, 127 Idaho 102 (1995) (trial court's factfinding at suppression hearings entitled to deference)