|
Pennsylvania
v. Mimms (1977)
US Supreme Court
P-Mac Daddy
Procedure: The defendant was
convicted in the court of common pleas in Philadelphia of
carrying a concealed firearm and carrying a firearm without a
license. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed and remanded the
conviction, finding that the gun was seized as a result of an
unlawful search and seizure by cops. The supreme court of the USA
reverses the Penn Supreme Court holding and reinstates
the trial court.
Facts: Two Philly cops were on a
routine patrol when they observed Mimms the defendant driving a
car, which had an expired license plate on it. The officer’s
stopped the vehicle so they could ticket the driver for the
moving violation. The officer pursuant to safety concerns asked
the driver (Mimms) to exit the vehicle; he saw a bulge in a sport
jacket he was wearing (An Eagle fan no doubt). A
frisk of Mimms uncovered a loaded 38-caliber handgun in his
waistband and his passenger had a loaded 32 caliber on him as
well, so both were arrested for carry concealed firearms without
a license and carry a firearm in general on their person without
a permit.
Issue: Whether the order to get out
of the car, issued after the driver was lawfully detained, was
reasonable and thus permissible under the 4th
Amendment?
Rule/Holding: This was a common
practice for police to ask motorists who were being cited for
motor vehicle violations to step out of their car. Establishing
the face-to-face contact between the police and the driver being
detained on violation diminishes the possibility that a person
will do movements unobserved in their car and assault the
officer. Also if the stop is executed in a high traffic area,
having the driver step around to the back of his vehicle gets the
officer out of the danger of standing in the road near traffic.
This amounts to a mere inconvenience for a driver, but is
reasonable given a police officer’s concern for his or her
safety. By stepping out of the car he only revealed little more
than was already visible when he was seated in the vehicle. The
bulge in the jacket permitted the officer to conclude that Mimm’s
was armed and thus posed a serious and present danger to the
safety of the officer. In these circumstances, any man of “reasonable
caution” would likely have conducted the “pat down.”
The decision of Penn Supreme Court is reversed.
Dissenting: (Marshall) He saw Terry
as involving the observations of a thirty-year police veteran,
who had been patrolling the downtown area of Cleveland and knew
what type of suspicious activity that would lead a police officer
to have reasonable suspicion that an armed robbery was about to
take place or had taken place. The stop and frisk under Terry
was reasonable because one who was suspected of attempting a
stick up is likely to be armed and a danger to the officer as
well as other citizens. In this case officers didn’t have
the slightest hint that the respondent might have a gun in the
car or was up to no good. The officer’s response must bear a
direct correlation to circumstances, which first justified the
interference. Doesn’t like how this decision broadens Terry,
beyond what the original scope was suppose to.
Dissenting: (Brennan, Stevens,
Marshall) today without argument the Court adopts still
another – and even lesser – standard of justification
for a major category of police seizures. He sees officer safety
as important, but finds the evidence of how officers are slain to
be unconvincing since some law enforcement training manuals
instruct officers not to have suspects get out of there cars,
when issuing traffic tickets. If beyond the moving violation, the
suspect has something he wishes to hide getting out of the car
could lead to a violent confrontation between the officer and
suspect who thinks the cop is on to him. This standard could lead
to elderly people, mothers with small children and other who
would otherwise raise no red flags with police inconvenienced by
getting out of there vehicle pursuant to police orders. The court
hold today that “third-class” seizures may be imposed
without reason; how large this class of seizures may be or become
we cannot know yet. The cops didn’t have a good reason for
asking Mimms to exit his vehicle!
|
