Back to the topic at hand...
I have not found anything in WA case law allowing a search for weapons in the vehicle at a routine traffic stop without consent. Even with PC, a warrant is required.
"Traffic Stops. An officer may not extend a traffic stop for an infraction in order to request consent to search the vehicle unless the officer has a reasonable suspicion that evidence of a crime will be found in the vehicle. See generally, State v. Armenta, 134 Wn.2d 1, 948 P.2d 1280 (1997);"
"DRIVERS, BUT NOT PASSENGERS, MAY BE AUTOMATICALLY ORDERED OUT OF, OR BACK INTO, THEIR VEHICLES AT ROUTINE TRAFFIC STOPS
State v. Mendez, 137 Wn.2d 208 (1999) March ’99 LED:04"
Here's the whole case:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...ghtened+awareness+of+danger&hl=en&as_sdt=4,48
BUT
"SEARCH OF MOTOR VEHICLE INCIDENT TO ARREST OF OCCUPANT GENERALLY NOT PERMITTED ONCE THE ARRESTEE IS SECURED
State v. Snapp, 172Wn.2d 177 (2012) May ’12 LED:25"
AND
"NO CARROLL DOCTRINE (NO PC CAR SEARCH EXCEPTION)
State v. Ringer, 100Wn.2d 686 (1983) Feb. ’84 LED:01
State v. Tibbles, 169Wn.2d 364 (2010) Sept ’10 LED:09"
"Const. art. I, § 7 bars warrantless searches of automobiles solely based upon probable cause to believe that the automobile contains contraband. State v. Ringer, 100
Wn.2d 686, 674 P.2d 1240 (1983). Accord State v. Tibbles, 169 Wn.2d 364, 236 P.3d 885 (2010) (exigent circumstances exception based upon destructibility of evidence and mobility of vehicle not permitted by Const. art. I, § 7)
AND
"SEARCH WILL NOT BE DEEMED TO BE “INCIDENT TO ARREST” UNLESS AN ACTUAL CUSTODIAL ARREST PRECEDES THE SEARCH
State v. O’Neill, 148Wn.2d 564 (2003) April ’03 LED:03
State v. Radka, 120Wn. App. 43 (Div. III, 2004) March ’04 LED:11"
(Custodial is actually taking you in.)
For those not familiar with the LED reference, it's the issue of Law Enforcement Digest where the case is discussed.
On this last one I've had experience with. WSP stopped us and my lady had a suspended license for a speeding ticket she didn't pay and was arrested, and the troopers requested consent from both of us. I said "it's her car, it's up to her." They told me I still could consent, I just said "ask her," and the left it at that, asked me which things were mine and removed them from the vehicle without searching them. She had been told they'd release her and let me drive if she consented, which they did. They didn't even ask me for ID until they were going to verify they were releasing the vehicle to a licensed driver since they're not supposed to ask, but asked me my first name when they first spoke to me so they'd have something to call me. I'd never seen cops follow the law so stringently before.
I got the reference from "Law Enforcement Legal Update Outline: Cases on arrest, search, seizure, and other topical areas of interest to law enforcement officers; plus a chronology of independent grounds rulings under Article I, Section 7 of the Washington Constitution. By John R. Wasberg (Retired Senior Counsel, Office of the Washington State Attorney General) " found at
https://fortress.wa.gov/cjtc/blog/images/LE_Legal_Update_ current thru 07 01 13.pdf
I also incorrectly stated earlier about the chart that shows the differences (which are pretty amazing) between the 4A and A1S7. I imagine people from Cali or NY crap their pants from too much freedom when they get here. That document is found here
https://fortress.wa.gov/cjtc/blog/images/May 2012 final Search Seizures and Confessions.pdf It's the last dozen or so pages.
I highly recommend reading the LED page, if you don't alreay. Highly informative up to date info on WA and Fed case law.
https://fortress.wa.gov/cjtc/blog/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=137&Itemid=80