Driver & Passenger(s) Can Be Ordered from Vehicle Based on SCOTUS Decisions

The SCOTUS decieded in Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (1977), that a police officer may as a matter of course order the driver of a lawfully stopped car to exit his vehicle. The SCOTUS revisited Mimms in 1997 and the Mimms decision was extended to passengers as well. See Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U.S. 408 (1997). Justice Powell summarized Mimms in Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (1978) as follows:

"this Court determined in [Mimms] that passengers in automobiles have no Fourth Amendment right not to be ordered from their vehicle, once a proper stop is made,".

In light of the broad powers granted to LEO, including the right to order the detainee and their passengers from the vehicle during traffic stops, I would comply immediately with the LEO's request. Anything less would likely create a confrontation between detainee and LEO.

The Court noted the following in Mimms (Page 434 U. S. 110): i.) "We think it too plain for argument that the State's proffered justification -- the safety of the officer -- is both legitimate and weighty." ii.) "[W]e have specifically recognized the inordinate risk confronting an officer as he approaches a person seated in an automobile." and iii.) "Against this important interest, we are asked to weigh the intrusion into the driver's personal liberty occasioned not by the initial stop of the vehicle, which was admittedly justified, but by the order to get out of the car. We think this additional intrusion can only be described as de minimis. The driver is being asked to expose to view very little more of his person than is already exposed. The police have already lawfully decided that the driver shall be briefly detained; the only question is whether he shall spend that period sitting in the driver's seat of his car or standing alongside it. Not only is the insistence of the police on the latter choice not a "serious intrusion upon the sanctity of the person," but it hardly rises to the level of a "petty indignity.'" Terry v. Ohio, supra at 392 U. S. 17. What is, at most, a mere inconvenience cannot prevail when balanced against legitimate concerns for the officer's safety. [emphasis added]"

Ms. Bland apparently did not believe LEO had a right to demand her from the vehicle. When Bland refused, the LEO apparently acted in response to her non-compliance to his order. If Bland had been willing to accept the authority of the LEO to demand that she exit the vehicle then this incident may have been avoided.

Pennsylvania v. Mimms: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/434/106.html

Maryland v. Wilson: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-1268.ZO.html

Rakas v. Illinois: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/439/128/case.html

We don't just need legal policing, we need GOOD policing.

What was shown in the video of Sandra Bland's arrest was not good policing.

I completely agree with the article below:

Cop Expert: Why Sandra Bland's Arrest Was Legal But Not Good Policing

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/sandra-bland-video-legal-but-not-good-policing

"As I watch the dash camera video of the traffic stop, I can’t help but think of the distinction between lawful policing and rightful policing."

Right, as I watched and listened to the dash camera video of the traffic stop, I can’t help but think of the distinction between lawful policing and rightful policing, and smart and rightful adherence to the law. In either case, two wrongs don't make it right!

mjh said:
We don't just need legal policing, we need GOOD policing.
What was shown in the video of Sandra Bland's arrest was not good policing.
I completely agree with the article below:
Cop Expert: Why Sandra Bland's Arrest Was Legal But Not Good Policing
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/sandra-bland-video-legal-but-not-good-policing

I like the idea of the article but take issue with a number of points raised by the author, Seth Stoughton, especially the following: "Regardless, it is problematic when officers focus on compliance—expecting people they interact with to be entirely deferential—to such an extent that they neglect cooperation, which must be earned."

If an individual is not willing to comply with a lawful order of the police then I would suggest that itself is suspicious behavior (worthy of further investigation). When my wife and I get stopped at a random checkpoint, my wife loves to ask me repeatedly (in front of the police officer) why we are getting pulled over and then repeat the question over and over again. When my wife asks the same question over and over again in front of the police officer, the LEOs definitely look at me closely to determine whether I am nervous (and one LEO asked my wife why she was so nervous).

Cops often must make split second decisions in order to safeguard their safety and the safety of others. Encumbering LEO with another layer of compliance regarding the tone of their discussions may cause LEO delays in responding to threats from detainees.

mjh said:
We don't just need legal policing, we need GOOD policing.
What was shown in the video of Sandra Bland's arrest was not good policing.
I completely agree with the article below:
Cop Expert: Why Sandra Bland's Arrest Was Legal But Not Good Policing
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/sandra-bland-video-legal-but-not-good-policing

Would you still advocate for "good policing*" as described by Seth Soughton, if this variety of good policing increased the risk of the death or serious injury to LEO by ten percent ("10%")?

*- A more appropriate name for this variety of "good policing would likely be "Don't-Offend-Anyone-Even-If-Dangerous."

RealityForAll said:

mjh said:
We don't just need legal policing, we need GOOD policing.
What was shown in the video of Sandra Bland's arrest was not good policing.
I completely agree with the article below:
Cop Expert: Why Sandra Bland's Arrest Was Legal But Not Good Policing
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/sandra-bland-video-legal-but-not-good-policing

Would you still advocate for "good policing*" as described by Seth Soughton, if this variety of good policing increased the risk of the death or serious injury to LEO by ten percent ("10%")?
*- A more appropriate name for this variety of "good policing would likely be "Don't-Offend-Anyone-Even-If-Dangerous."

That's nonsense. If a cop wants to lower his risk of death or serious injury he should end the stop as quickly as possible. If you've finished your paperwork and you're ready to leave, don't pull a power trip and ask someone to put out their cigarette, just walk away.