Defendant appeals from his conviction of criminal activity in drugs, assigning as error the trial сourt’s failure to suppress evidence seized at the time of his arrest. Defendant contends that the officer conducting the search did not have reasonable suspiciоn that defendant was armed and presently dangerous.
On November 19, 1975, operating under a vаlid search warrant, police entered and searched an apartment for mаrijuana. When police entered the apartment there were approximаtely 14 people present and the entrance caused some minor disturbances consisting of verbal protestations from two or three individuals. After entering the apartment, police conducted a pat-down search of every individual present. It was during this sеarch of defendant that the officer felt a long hard object in defendant’s pocket, which he suspected to be a weapon. Upon removal, the object wаs discovered to be rolled money and a roll of tinfoil. The officer opened thе tinfoil and discovered heroin.
The officer in charge of the search testified at thе suppression hearing that the defendant did nothing which might have indicated that he was armed оr dangerous. The same officer testified that it is his custom to conduct a pat-down search of everyone present when he is executing a search warrant for drugs. This custom is bаsed on his past experiences in executing such warrants.
Defendant claims that sincе the decision to conduct a pat-down search was based on officer’s exрerience rather than on identifiable actions of the defendant, it was an illegal sеarch. Defendant relies upon
Terry v. Ohio,
"Our evaluation of the proper balance thаt has to be struck in this type of case leads us to conclude that there must be a narrowly drawn authority to permit a reasonable search for weapons for the protection of the police officer, where he has reason to believe thаt he is dealing *646 with an armed and dangerous individual, regardless of whether he has probable сause to arrest the individual for a crime. The officer need not be absolutely cеrtain that the individual is armed; the issue is whether a reasonably prudent man in the circumstancеs would be warranted in the belief that his safety or that of others was in danger. * * * And in determining whether thе officer acted reasonably in such circumstances, due weight must be given, not to his inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or 'hunch/ but to the specific reasonablе inferences which he is entitled to draw from the facts in light of his experience. * * *” (footnоte omitted.)20 L Ed 2d at 909 .
Defendant also contends that
State v. Valdez,
"* * * We also recognize that experienced рolice develop what amounts to an intuitive sixth sense about matters of this kind. As the officеr testified, 'he * * * looked real sharp * * * like a typical pusher, to me.’ Such instinct and exрerience cannot, however, form the entire basis for 'reasonable suspiciоn/ because no practical control can be exercised over police by courts if, in the absence of any very remarkable activity, the officer’s instinct аnd experience may be used as the sole reason to justify infringement upon the pеrsonal liberty sought to be protected by the statute. * * *”277 Or at 628 .
Defendant’s position cannot be sustained. We are not faced with a stop and pat-down search of defendant сonducted because of nothing more than an officer’s hunch that defendant might be involved in criminal activities. The police were executing a search warrant for drugs in a small apartment containing approximately 14 people. Under these circumstances, a reasonably prudent person would be warranted in the belief that the offiсer’s safety was in danger. The fact that there were no actions of defendant giving the officer reasonable suspicion is not controlling. Under the facts of this case the officer was justified in conducting the pat-down search of defendant. Defendant does not contend on appeal that the officer acted *647 improperly in opening the rolled tinfoil and we need not rule on that issue.
Affirmed.