Can I Be Removed From My Vehicle After a Traffic Stop Is Initiated?

The Supreme Court of the United States has found that “[t]touchstone of our analysis under the Fourth Amendment is always “the reasonableness in all the circumstances of the particular governmental invasion of a citizen's personal security.” Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 19, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1878, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968); Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 108–12 (1977).  Reasonableness, of course, depends “on a balance between the public interest and the individual's right to personal security free from arbitrary interference by law officers.” United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 878, 95 S.Ct. 2574, 45 L.Ed.2d 607 (1975).

The Court found that there was “no question” that the initial traffic stop was valid.  As such, the "inquiry must therefore focus not on the intrusion resulting from the request to stop the vehicle or from the later “pat down,” but on the incremental intrusion resulting from the request to get out of the car once the vehicle was lawfully stopped. Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 108–12 (1977)

The holding of the Court was that the additional intrusion on an individuals rights to be removed from their vehicle "can only be described as de minimis.” Id. At 333. The Court decided that “[w]hat is at most a mere inconvenience cannot prevail when balanced against legitimate concerns for the officer's safety.” Id.

**334 6 There remains the second question of the propriety of the search once the bulge in the jacket was observed. We have as little doubt on this point as on the first; the answer is controlled by Terry v. Ohio, supra.In that case we thought the officer justified in conducting a limited search for weapons  *112 once he had reasonable concluded that the person whom he had legitimately stopped might be armed and presently dangerous. Under the standard enunciated in that case—whether “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”⁷—there is little question the officer was justified. The bulge in the jacket permitted the officer to conclude that Mimms 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.”

Respondent's motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The petition for writ of certiorari is granted, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. Id.

If you have been subject to a traffic stop contact the Law Offices of Bidlingmaier & Bidlingmaier for your free consultation.