|
Maryland
v. Wilson (1997)
US Supreme Court
P-Mac Daddy
Procedure: The Baltimore County
Circuit Court granted Wilson’s motion to suppress evidence
(crack) obtained during a traffic stop for a speeding violation.
The Maryland Court of Special Appeals affirmed under Penn
v. Mimms that an officer may, as a matter of course order
the driver of a lawfully stopped car to exit his vehicle, does
not apply to passengers. The Supreme Court of the USA reverses
the Maryland Appeal court decision.
Facts: On I-95 in Baltimore a police
officer noticed a car with Enterprise rent a car tags doing 64 in
a 55mph zone. The officer turned on the blue light to pull over
the speeding car, but it continued on for a mile and ½ before
finally pulling over. During the pursuit, the police officer
noticed that there were three occupants in the vehicle, with two
ducking down in an attempt to avoid detection. The driver got out
of the car and attempted to meet the officer halfway, the cop
told the driver to return to the car and produce the rental car’s
registration. Then after receiving it from the driver, he ordered
the passenger Wilson out of the car he was nervous as well and
when he opened the car door crack cocaine fell out and he was
placed under arrest for possession with intent to distribute.
Wilson moved to suppress the evidence obtained when the officer
ordered him out of the rental car, he was successful in trial
court as well as on appeal where it was held up.
Issue: In this case we consider
whether the rule of Penn v. Mimms, that a police officer may as a
matter of course order the driver of a lawfully stopped car to
exit his vehicle, extends to passengers as well.
Holding: Yes, we
hold that it does!
Analysis: (Rehnquist) noting
that the driver’s car was already validly stopped for a
traffic violation, we deemed the additional intrusion of asking
him to step outside his car “de minimis”. The court
determined under Mimms those passengers in
automobiles have no 4th Amendment right not to be
ordered from their vehicle once a proper stop is made. The
interest of an officer’s safety makes asking a passenger to
step out of a vehicle a mechanism for deterring a possible
assault because a passenger can be equally as violent towards a
cop as a driver. The passenger as a practical matter is already
stopped by virtue of the vehicle being stopped. The intrusion is
minimal, car with passengers can pose a greater risk to a cop
then one without and the Maryland appeal courts should be
reversed as to suppression of this evidence.
Dissenting: (Stevens & Kennedy)
this case in contrast raises a separate and significant question
concerning the power of the state to make an initial seizure of
persons who are not even suspected of having violated the law.
This does not conform to Terry; the statistics of
how and when officers are assaulted during the performance of a
routine traffic are not concrete or convincing. Some literature
out there says it is far more dangerous for an officer to order
out passengers from a car and the risk of assault is increased
because the passengers might fear they are about to be snagged
for some contraband he might be hiding on him or around his
person. In Maryland alone, there is something on the order of one
million traffic stops. Assuming that there are passengers in at
least half the cars stopped, the benefits will be marginal when
weighed against the inconvenience that the ordinary average law
abiding citizen face as a result of this ruling.
|
