A young man by the name of Harry Mimms was pulled over and eventually charged for possession of a deadly weapon. The ruling was later brought up to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in which the ruling was reversed in favor of Mimms, but brought up again in the U.S. Supreme Court and was then reversed to its original ruling.

Overview

In 1977, two Officers pulled over Harry Mimms for an expired license plate. The cop told Mimms to exit the vehicle, and when Mimms stepped out the police officer noticed a bulge in his pants under the Jacket. The officer proceeded to arrest Mimms and the man in the passenger seat for carrying a concealed deadly weapon and unlawfully carrying a gun without a license. The order was soon reversed on charges that the police violated Mimms' Fourth Amendment

Fourth Amendment

Fourth Amendment may refer to the:*Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution—part of the Bill of Rights, prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures....

 rights. The ruling was soon brought to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on December 5, 1977. The Ruling was later overturned and Mimms was charged with all of the previous charges.

Background

The case Terry v. Ohio

Terry v. Ohio

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 , was a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and frisks him without probable cause to arrest, if the police...

 stated, "the facts available to the officer at the moment of the seizure or the search `warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief' that the action taken was appropriate". Therefore the officer had the right to arrest Mimms under the charges because he observed the bulge under the jacket.

Conclusion

The initial ruling favored the police officer in the court of common pleas in Philadelphia. An appeal later was brought up to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania and reversed the ruling, and then the ruling was reversed once again in favor of the officer by the U.S. Supreme Court. In a 6-3 Per curiam the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decided against Mimms in the ruling. The order to exit the car was permissible under the fourth amendment

Fourth Amendment

Fourth Amendment may refer to the:*Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution—part of the Bill of Rights, prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures....

. (officer safety) understandable and therefore did not intrude on his personal rights or freedom.

Ruling

It was considered common for police officers to ask people inside their vehicle to exit it to prevent any danger that may occur to the officer. It is also much safer to avoid danger from oncoming traffic. Asking Mimms to step out of the car raised little more inconvenience and revealed a little more than what was shown before. Therefore the bulge that the officer noticed was posed as a serious threat to the officer. Anyone with this realization may have conducted a “pat down.” The Decision of Pennsylvania Supreme Court was reversed.

The Appeal

The Petitioner Commonwealth sought out the judgment of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania to reverse the conviction in favor of Mimms for carrying a firearm and deadly weapon without a license. The court reversed the ruling due the to fact that the “revolver was seized in a manner which violated the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.” Because the Supreme Court disagreed with the following ruling, they granted the Commonwealth’s petition for certiorari and therefore the judgment of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania was reversed

Reiterating the Facts

While on Patrol in the city of Philadelphia, two officers discovered Harry Mimms on the road, driving a vehicle with an expired licensed plate. The two officers pulled over the vehicle to issue the ticket, one of the two officers stepped out of the car and proceeded to walk towards Mimms’ vehicle where upon he asked to exit the vehicle and show his drivers license and registration. While he was doing so the officer noticed a bulge under the respondent’s jacket. To assess the situation the officer frisked and searched Mimms and discovered a .38-caliber handgun loaded. The passenger with Mimm’s was also found with a .32-caliber weapon. The officer proceeded to arrest Mimm’s under the account that he was carrying a hidden deadly weapon without a license. The motion to suppress the revolver was not accepted and after trial he was convicted of both counts.
The Supreme Court’s decision to reverse the ruling was decided because they thought the revolver should have been suppressed because it was discovered due to violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court saw no problem in the actions that involved pulling the car over, and were even to go as far as to say that due to the observation of the bulge under the respondent’s coat, the search was permissible. However the fact that the officer asked the defendant to exit the vehicle created a forbidden “seizure.” The officer was not able to identify the bulge in order to be suspect any criminal activity afoot if the suspect remained in the vehicle. Due to the fact that the gun was discovered by the unconstitutional action, the revolver was not considered in the Supreme Court and therefore was suppressed.

Argument of the Court

The Fourth Amendment

Fourth Amendment

Fourth Amendment may refer to the:*Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution—part of the Bill of Rights, prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures....

 states “the reasonableness in all the circumstances of the particular governmental invasion of a citizens personal security.” “The reasonableness depends” “on a balance between the public interest and the individual’s rights to personal security free from arbitrary interference by law officers.” Unlike Terry V. Ohio the initial “violation” of freedom was permissible because the Driver was driving with an expired license plate in violation of the Pennsylvania Department of Motor Vehicles Code. The only thing to decide, besides the “pat down”, is whether the initial authorization by the officer to tell the respondent to exit the vehicle was aloud under the Fourth Amendment. Therefore the court must focus on the violation resulting from the officer telling the respondent to exit the vehicle once it was legally stopped.
The state of Pennsylvania believes that the officer had no evidence to be suspicious of Mimms during the stop whether it was his behavior or unusual activity; nothing was evident during the patrol. The state discovered that the officer, during every routine traffic stop, ordered the drivers to exit their vehicles. The state defends the officer, saying that this practice was used to prevent anything from happening to the officer and that it could have been reasonable under those circumstances. Being in front of the officer makes it impossible to have something suspicious go unseen if the driver were to attempt something to harm the officer.
There is a huge risk for officers confronting a man seated in his vehicle on a routine traffic stop. “According to a study, approximately 30% of police shootings occurred when a police officer approached a suspect seated in an automobile.” However one cannot assume that traffic violations are more dangerous than other various confrontations.
Another reason to somewhat make the action taken by the officer to ask the respondent to exit the vehicle acceptable, was that it could prevent an accidental mishap from oncoming cars. Instead of discussing the issue while standing on the road, the officer may ask the driver to exit the car and move off to the side of the road for further discussion.
Now the question at hand is whether there was an intrusion in the personal liberty of the driver after the order to get out of the vehicle. The conclusion was that it was “de minimis” (low level of risk). The officer has already decided that the driver is to be detained for the traffic summons, now it is whether they should converse while the driver is sitting in the car or standing alongside it. The action to step out of the car is merely for the officers’ safety and is not a serious infraction in the liberty of the driver.
In the case of Terry v. Ohio

Terry v. Ohio

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 , was a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and frisks him without probable cause to arrest, if the police...

 “the facts available to the officer at the moment of the seizure or the search ‘warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that the action taken was appropriate.” Since the action the officer took to tell the driver to exit the vehicle was justified, then the observation of the bulge in the drivers’ jacket was thought to present danger to the officer and therefore he had “reasonable caution” to have conducted the “pat down.”
The Supreme Court of the U.S reversed the Ruling by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Dissenting Arguments

Judge Thurgood Marshall

Thurgood Marshall

Thurgood Marshall was an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, serving from October 1967 until October 1991...

wrote a dissenting opinion, stating that the “frisk” that the officer proceeded to do to Mimms could only be permissible under the Fourth Amendment if the search was due to the reason for the stop. The reason Mimms was pulled over was due to an expired licensed plate, which in no way has to do with carrying a concealed weapon. This is where Marshall disagreed.
Justice John Paul Steven, William Brennan, and Thurgood Marshall brought about a different dissent in that the court gave to much leeway in allowing the officers to search the defendant for any reason of concern.