Pennsylvania v. Mimms
434 U.S. 106 (1977)
Rule of Law:
A police officer may, as a matter of course, order the driver of a lawfully stopped vehicle to exit the vehicle. This order is a de minimis intrusion on the driver's personal liberty and is justified by the government's strong interest in officer safety.
Facts:
- Two Philadelphia police officers on routine patrol observed Harry Mimms driving an automobile with an expired license plate.
- The officers stopped Mimms' vehicle for the purpose of issuing a traffic summons.
- One officer approached and asked Mimms to step out of the car and produce his owner's card and operator's license.
- As Mimms alighted from the car, the officer noticed a large bulge under his sports jacket.
- Fearing the bulge was a weapon, the officer frisked Mimms.
- The frisk revealed a .38-caliber revolver loaded with five rounds of ammunition in Mimms' waistband.
Procedural Posture:
- Harry Mimms's motion to suppress the revolver was denied by the state trial court.
- Following a trial, Mimms was convicted of carrying a concealed deadly weapon and unlawfully carrying a firearm without a license.
- Mimms appealed to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
- The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (the state's highest court) reversed the conviction, holding that the revolver was seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
- The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (petitioner) filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a police officer's order to a driver to exit a vehicle, issued after the vehicle was lawfully stopped for a traffic violation, constitute an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No. A police officer's order to a driver of a lawfully stopped vehicle to exit the car does not violate the Fourth Amendment's proscription against unreasonable seizures. The court's analysis balances the public interest against the individual's liberty. Here, the state's justification of officer safety is both legitimate and weighty, as traffic stops present inordinate risks to police. This strong interest is weighed against the intrusion on the driver's liberty, which the Court characterizes as de minimis. Since the driver is already lawfully detained for the traffic stop, the additional intrusion of standing outside the car rather than sitting inside is a mere inconvenience that cannot prevail when balanced against legitimate concerns for officer safety. Once the officer observed the bulge under Mimms' jacket after he exited the vehicle, the subsequent frisk was justified under the principles of Terry v. Ohio.
Dissenting - Justice Marshall
Yes. The order to exit the vehicle was an unreasonable seizure. This decision is an unwarranted departure from the principles of Terry v. Ohio, which requires that a police officer's actions be 'reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference in the first place.' The stop was justified by an expired license plate, a circumstance that bears no relation whatsoever to the order to get out of the car. The officer had no individualized suspicion or reason to fear the respondent before issuing the order, yet the majority's holding authorizes this additional intrusion in every routine traffic stop. This expansion of Terry's narrow holding without particularized suspicion is improper.
Dissenting - Justice Stevens
Yes. The order to exit the vehicle was an unreasonable seizure. The Court's decision abandons the core Fourth Amendment principle requiring individualized inquiry into the facts justifying a police intrusion, instead creating a broad, general rule for millions of traffic stops. The factual assumption about officer safety is dubious and not well-supported by the cited studies; some experts even advise against ordering drivers out of cars. The intrusion on the citizen is not always negligible, as factors like weather, health, or fear can make the order a significant imposition. By eliminating the need for an officer to articulate a reason for the order, the Court leaves police discretion without limits, opening the door for arbitrary or harassing stops.
Analysis:
This case establishes a significant bright-line rule that enhances police authority during traffic stops. By deeming the order to exit a vehicle a de minimis intrusion, the Court eliminated the need for officers to have any particularized suspicion of danger before taking this precautionary step. This prioritization of officer safety over a driver's minor liberty interest simplifies the Fourth Amendment analysis for lower courts in the context of traffic stops. The decision has had a lasting impact, becoming a standard police practice and a foundational principle in street-level police-citizen encounter jurisprudence.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Pennsylvania v. Mimms (1977)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"