be subjected to a pat-down for weapons. Broadnax, 98 Wn.2d at 295. The Terry standard must be met, and that standard requires that the well-founded suspicion be directed at the particular individual to be searched. Here, specific facts cast suspicion on Horrace. It was undisputed that the driver’s movements were made in Horrace’s direction and that Horrace was in close proximity to the suspicious movements. Additionally, the trooper testified that he was concerned that the driver had concealed a weapon in Horrace’s jacket. These facts negate Horrace’s claim that the trooper’s pat-down search was part of a general, routine (and plainly impermissible) practice of patting down passengers after the driver’s arrest. See, e.g., State v. Smith, 102 Wn.2d 449, 452-53, 688 P.2d 146 (1984) (<HOLDING>). Finally, because Terry provides that the
holding that unfounded allegations of attenuated domestic violence and suspicion of cocaine use did not justify an immediate frisk holding that a defendants unprovoked flight upon noticing the police in a highcrime area was suggestive of wrongdoing and therefore provided reasonable suspicion justifying an investigatory detention holding that an unverified tip from a known informant was sufficiently reliable to justify a terry stop and frisk holding that a generalized suspicion of those questioned in highcrime area was insufficient to justify terry frisk holding that law enforcement did not have sufficient reasonable suspicion to either stop or frisk the defendant when the defendant was in a highcrime area had a large bulge in his pants pocket and acted nervously when approached by officers