Washington State Courts

movement appearing to be concealing a weapon or contraband in the
passenger compartment, a protective search is generally allowed. "), review
denied, 166 Wn.2d 1002 (2009). Nor had he called attention to himself
while Schwab had watched him during the ride. RP 45, 61-62. Cf. State
v. Harper, 33 Wn. App. 507, 511, 655 P.2d 1199 (1982) (finding a
reasonable safety concern where suspect repeatedly and nervously jammed
hand into pocket).
Importantly, B.-H. complied with Johnson's orders from the outset
of the confrontation. Johnson described him as "[e]xtremely cooperative."
RP 86. See State v. Xiong, 164 Wn.2d 506, 514, 191 P.3d 1278 (2008)
(officers had no basis for searching suspect's pants pocket; suspect "was
cooperative with the police, he made no effort to flee, and he did not make
any moves that suggested he could reach into his pants pocket. "); cf.,
United States v. Taylor, 716 F.2d 701,709 (9th Cr. 1983) (using handcuffs
did not convert investigative detention into arrest where suspect had twice
disobeyed order to raise his hands and made furtive movements inside
truck where his hands could not be seen).
Johnson nevertheless handcuffed B.-H. while they were on the bus.
RP 83. "[H]andcuffing substantially aggravates the intrusiveness of an
otherwise routine investigatory detention and is not part of a typical ThrrY
-14-