Following a search of his automobile during which evidence was seized, defendant was charged by bill of information with possession of marijuana in violation of La. R.S. 40:966. After his motion to suppress the evidence was heard and denied the defendant entered a guilty plea, reserving his right to appeal from the adverse ruling on the motion to suppress. State v. Crosby, 338 So.2d 584 (La.1976). The court sentenced the defendant to pay a fine of $150.00 and to serve six months in jail, suspended the jail sentence and placed the defendant on inactive probation for a period of six months.
On June 11, 1977, a police officer stopped the defendant' and his passenger for allegedly making an illegal turn at the inter*904section of Veterans Highway and Clearview Parkway. As the officer approached the defendant’s vehicle he saw the defendant “slumped over,” suggesting to the officer that the defendant might be concealing something beneath the seat of the car. The officer asked the defendant to get out of the car, but the passenger was permitted to remain in the front seat. The officer then proceeded to search under the front seat of the car and discovered six plastic bags of marijuana. The defendant was arrested for possession of marijuana, but no traffic citation was issued.
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, § 5 of the Louisiana Constitution prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures. A war-rantless search is unreasonable unless the search can be justified by one of the narrowly drawn exceptions to the warrant requirement. Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 93 S.Ct. 2041, 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973); State v. Lain, 347 So.2d 167 (La.1977). The state bears the burden of proving that one of these exceptions applies. Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971); State v. Adams, 355 So.2d 917 (La.1978); State v. Franklin, 353 So.2d 1315 (La.1978).
The only argument offered in support of the constitutionality of the warrant-less search in the present case was that the search was made incident to a lawful arrest. Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 89 S.Ct. 2034, 23 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969); State v. Breaux, 329 So.2d 696 (La.1976); State v. King, 322 So.2d 205 (La.1975); State v. Braford, 298 So.2d 781 (La.1974). This exception occasionally has been invoked to justify searches made incident to the arrest of persons for traffic violations. United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218, 94 S.Ct. 467, 38 L.Ed.2d 427 (1973) (defendant arrested for driving after his license had been revoked); Gustafson v. Florida, 414 U.S. 260, 94 S.Ct. 488, 38 L.Ed.2d 456 (1973) (defendant arrested for driving without a license). However, in order for a search to be valid as an incident to a lawful arrest, the state must prove that the defendant had in fact been arrested at the time the search was conducted. State v. Marks, 337 So.2d 1177 (La.1976).
An arrest occurs only when the facts and circumstances indicate that the police officer has formed an intent to restrain the liberty of an accused for an extended period of time. La.C.Cr.P. art. 201; State v. Robinson, 342 So.2d 183 (La.1977); State v. Warren, 283 So.2d 740 (La.1973). The defendant in the present case was initially stopped for a minor traffic violation, but he was not arrested for that offense.1 The police officer testified that the defendant was arrested only after the marijuana was discovered. Since the defendant had not been arrested when the search was conducted, the search cannot be valid as incident to a lawful arrest.2
We recognize, however, that a police officer is sometimes justified in making a limited weapons search of a person who has not been arrested. Thus, a police officer may conduct a “pat-down” search of the outer garments of a person suspected of committing a crime if the officer reason*905ably believes that the suspect is armed and dangerous. Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 92 S.Ct. 1921, 32 L.Ed.2d 612 (1972); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). These “stop and frisk” cases represent a pragmatic attempt to accommodate the police officer’s legitimate need for protection during a confrontation with suspects believed to be armed. Such a “pat-down” search is now specifically authorized by La.C.Cr.P. art. 215.1. The “stop and frisk” doctrine may have been slightly expanded by a recent decision of the United States Supreme Court. In Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 98 S.Ct. 330, 54 L.Ed.2d 331 (1977), the Court held that a police officer, upon stopping a vehicle for a minor traffic violation, may require the driver to get out of the car even though the officer has no specific reason to believe that the driver is armed or dangerous. In Mimms, the police officers made a “pat-down” search of the driver only after noticing a bulge in the driver’s jacket which led the officers to believe that the driver was armed, and the officers’ search was limited to the person of the driver.
The search of defendant’s car in the present case, however, cannot be justified as a “stop and frisk” search. The police officer had no reason to believe that the defendant or his passenger was armed or dangerous.3 Moreover, the officer did not merely frisk the defendant’s outer garments. He returned to the car and reached beneath the seat in order to discover the marijuana.
It is true that automobiles are accorded less protection against warrantless searches than homes or offices. South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364, 96 S.Ct. 3092, 49 L.Ed.2d 1000 (1976); Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42, 90 S.Ct. 1975, 26 L.Ed.2d 419 (1970); Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 45 S.Ct. 280, 69 L.Ed. 543 (1925). However, it is also true that “[t]he word ‘automobile’ is not a talisman in whose presence the Fourth Amendment fades away and disappears.” Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 461, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 2035, 29 L.Ed.2d 564, 580 (1971). We conclude that the search of defendant’s car in the present case violated the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, § 5 of the Louisiana Constitution.
The trial court erred in overruling the defendant’s motion to suppress the marijuana seized from his vehicle on June 11, 1977. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the motion to suppress is granted. The case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with the views expressed herein.
SUMMERS, J., dissents.
SANDERS, C. J., and MARCUS, J., dissent and assign reasons.