During a routine patrol, a police officer noticed that the defendant’s vehicle had an expired license plate. The officer pulled the defendant over to issue him a ticket for operating a vehicle without a current license plate. The officer asked Mimms to get out of the car. When Mimms got out of the car, the officer noticed a bulge in his jacket. Based his observation the officer searched Mimms and found a gun. Mimms was arrested for possesion of an illegal firearm.
The District Court of Pennsylvania sentenced Mimms to prison for possession and concealment of a deadly weapon without a license. Mimms appealed the decistion of the district court to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, on the grounds, that the officer’s instructions to get out of the vehicle and the searching of his person was a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reversed the decision of the district court. Their reasoning was that the officer’s search of Mimms was a violation of his rights under the Fourth Amendment. However, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reversed on the ground that the police officer’s order to the defendant to get out of his car was an mpermissible seizure under the Fourth Amendment because the order had been issued as a matter of routine rather than on the basis of objective observable facts supporting a suspicion that the driver posed a threat to the officer’s safety, the revolver thus being the fruit of an unconstitutional search (370 A2d 1157). ” Pennsylvania v. Mimms 234 U. S. 106, 111, 54L. Ed. 2d 331 98S. Ct. 330(1997) pg. 2.
Since the search was a violation of Mimms’ Fourth Amendment rights the gun was not admissible as evidence. On appeal to the United States Supreme Court, the decision of Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court was reversed by a majority of seven with two issenting. The majority opinion stated that asking a driver out of the vehicle after a stop is but a small addition to the stop. “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. ” Pennsylvania v. Mimms 234 U. S. 106, 111, 54L. Ed. 2d 331 98S. Ct. 330(1997). The Court weighed the inconvenience of asking a driver to step out of a vehicle against the safety of an officer. They agreed that it was not a violation of liberty to ask an individual to get out of a vehicle if it prevents an officer from being harmed. The Court concluded that this was but a minor intrusion on an individual’s liberty but not enough to violate the Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures.
When an officer stops a vehicle because of a violation, asking the driver for a license in addition to step out of the vehicle, is considered part of the stop, therefore it was not violation of the Fourth Amendment. ” The driver is being asked to expose to view very little more of his person than is already exposed. The police 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’s privacy, it hardly rises to the level of petty indignity. What is more a mere inconvenience cannot prevail when balanced against the legitimate concerns for the police officer’s safety. ” Pennsylvania v. Mimms 234 U. S. 106, 111, 54L. Ed. 2d 331 98S. Ct. 330(1997). The Court continued to reason that once the driver has been topped by an officer, he was going to be held briefly and it didn’t matter whether he was in the car or standing along side it.
Either way he was still going to have to answer whatever questions or provide documents the officer might have asked from him. The Court didn’t see this as a violation of the driver’s liberty, but a minor intrusion. The Court basically said in this case that it was acceptable for the police to intrude upon an individual’s right of privacy because such intrusion under this circumstance was considered minor. The police department’s interpretation of a minor intrusion on privacy may be differnt in each precinct. The Court left the door open for a police officer to determine what situation merits a minor intrusion on privacy with their reasoning.
Finally, the Court’s reasoning concerning the seizure of the weapon was that the presence of possible personal danger to the officer is more serious and important than the minor violation of an invidual’ s right to privacy. “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 caustion” would likely have conducted he pat-down. ” Pennsylvania v. Mimms 234 U. S. 106, 111, 54L. Ed. 2d 331 98S. Ct. 330(1997).
Opinion of the Court in Maryland v. Wilson 519 U. S. 408; 117 S. Ct. 882 The defendant, Wilson, was pulled over after being chased by a Maryland State trooper, for violating the speed limit and operating without the proper license plate. While chasing the defendant, the officer noticed that there were passengers in the back seat. The officer became suspicious of the party in the car when the driver got out of the vehicle and showed him his license before the officer asked him to. The officer asked the river for the registration for the car. He asked the passenger to step out of the car because he seemed nervous.
When the passenger stepped out of the vehicle, a vial containing crack fell from his lap. The passenger was arrested and charged with possesion of an illegal substance. During the trial, the respondent moved for suppression of the evidence, based on the arguement that the officer violated his Fourth Amendment rights by asking him to step out of vehicle. The Circuit Court suppressed the evidence. The State Supreme Court of Maryland affirmed the decision of of the lower court because the precedent Pennsylvania v. Mimms 234 U. S. 106, 111, 54L. Ed. 2d 331 98S. Ct. only required the driver of the vehicle to get out of the car.
The United States Supreme Court reversed the decision of Maryland Supreme Court. The United States Supreme Court majority, seven to two vote, extended the ruling in Pennsylvania v. Mimms 234 U. S. 106, 111, 54L. Ed. 2d 331 98S. Ct. to include passengers. “As a practicle matter the passengers are already stopped as a virtue of the stop vehicle. ” Maryland v. Wilson 519 U. S. 408; 117 S. Ct. To stop the passenger and ask them to get out of the vehicle, according to the court is part of the stop of the driver. The Court’s reasoning was that the danger to a police office is increased when there are passengers in the vehicle.
Even though the driver was the one who committed the offense, the driver as well as the passenger have to get out of the vehicle as precaution and for protection of the officer. Once again the Court reasoned that this was a minor intrusion on the individual’s liberty. The individual’s right to privacy were reduced and the police’s authority was expanded. Once again a minor intrusion on privacy was left to the officer to decide, based on the circumstances of a stop.
The officer has the power to decide whether a situation might be angerous enough to employ a minor intrusion on an individual’s liberty. Although no special danger to the police is suggested by the evidence in this record, the execution of a warrant to search for narcotics is the kind of transaction that may give rise to sudden violence or frantic efforts to conceal or destroy evidence. The risk of harm to both the police and the occupants is minimized if the officers routinely exercise unquestioned command of the situation. “Maryland v. Wilson 519 U. S. 408; 117 S. Ct. Through this reasoning, the Court gave the police the power to determine when a situation is considered dangerous.
It also gave them the authority to determine whether an invidual is acting suspiciously. The Court reasoned that if there were weapons or illegal substances in the vehicle the driver as well as the passengers might be inclined to distroy the evidence or pose a treat to the officer. Ordering the driver as well as the passengers out of the vehicle was not a violation of either party’s Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures, but a minor intrusion on a person’s liberty when compared to the safety of an officer. Since the ruling in Pennsylvania v. Mimms 234 U. S. 106, 111, 54L. Ed. 2d 331 98S. Ct. he Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures has narrowed.
Certain rights to privacy are no longer included under the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court’s rulings in both Pennsylvania v. Mimms 234 U. S. 106, 111, 54L. Ed. 2d 331 98S. Ct. 330(1997) and Maryland v. Wilson 519 U. S. 408; 117 S. Ct. , have proven that this right is not absolute and is subjected to the interpretation of the Supreme Court. Also, due to the reasoning in both cases, the authority of the police has expanded, leaving the police the power to determine when a situation is dangerous enough to intrude on an individual’s liberty.
Opinions in Massachusetts v. Gonsalves The defendant was in a taxi when a state trooper stopped the vehicle when the vehicle swerved in and out of a lane. His reasons were that he thought the driver might be driving while intoxicated. The trooper was questioning the driver when he noticed that the defendant, who was in the back seat, appeared to be nervous and fidgeting. Based on that the trooper asked the defendant to get out of the vehicle. He then searched the defendant’s person and found no weapons or illegal substances.
The trooper then proceeded to ask the driver to search the back seat where the defendant was sitting. He searched the back seat and found a plastic bag of cocaine hidden in the seat. The trooper arrested the defendant and let the taxi driver go. During trial in the Superior Court of Massachusetts, Gonsalves made a motion to suppress the cocaine. The motion was granted by the judge because, the trooper’s search of the back seat of the vehicle and asking the defendant to get out of the vehicle, was a violation of Article 14 of the Declaration of Rights of the Massachusetts Constitution.
And base on this provision of the Massachusetts Constitution, the trooper had no “objective basis upon which to order the defendant out of the vehicle. Massachusetts v. Gonsalves, 429 Mass. 658; 711 N. E. 2d 108; 1999, pg5. The Appeals Court of Massachusetts affirmed the decision of the Superior Court, stating that it was also a violation of the state’s Constitution. The State Supreme Court of Massachusetts upheld the decision of the Appeals Court with a vote of seven to two. The majority opinion were, Judges Wilkens, Abrams, Lynch, Greaney, Fried and Marshall.
The majority opinion was that, asking the defendant to get out of the vehicle and the further search of the backseat of the vehicle was unwarranted. The majority used the decision in Pennsylvania v. Mimms 234 U. S. 106, 111, 54L. Ed. 2d 331 98S. Ct. 330(1997) and Maryland v. Wilson 519 U. S. 408; 117 S. Ct. 882; to support their reasoning. “In Pennsylvania v. Mimms 234 U. S. 106, 111, 54L. Ed. 2d 331 98S. Ct. 330(1997), the United States Supreme Court held that a police officer, may, as a matter of course, order a driver out of a vehicle that has been lawfully stopped for a traffic violation. The Massachusetts Supreme Court used this case to as tool to broaden the rights of their citizens. The Majority stated that the decision in this case was too narrow. The decision gave the police too much power in allowing him to ecide when it was necessary to ask the driver or passenger to get out of the vehicle. A power that might be abused. The court further reasoned that there might be many other reasons why a person might act nervous and this did not give the authority to a police officer to violate that person’s privacy by asking that person out of t he vehicle. Such an intrusion into a driver or passenger’s privacy is not minimal. As was expressed by the dissent in Mimms, a woman stopped at night may fear for her own safety; a person in poor health may object to standing in the cold or rain; another who left home in a haste to drive children or pouse to school or to the train may not be fully dressed; an elderly driver who presents no possible treat of violence may regard the police command as nothing more than an arrogant and unnecessary display of authority. ” Pennsylvania v.
Mimms, 434 U. S. at 120-121(Stevens, J. , dissenting) The Supreme Court of Massachusetts agreed with Justice Stevens’ dissent that an invasion of one’ s privacy is not minimal. Allowing an officer to ask people to get out of their vehicle during a stop for a simple traffic violation may leave the door open for racial discrimination. The majority felt that the decision in Mimms allowed the police to intrude n an individual’s rights, which was contrary to the Constitution of Massachusetts. “We also point out our relevant considerations.
The Declaration of Rights was adopted in 1780 as part of Massachusetts Constitution, some seven years before the United States Constitution was approved. The Declaration of Rights was written in historical context of the abuses of governmental power inflicted on the colonists of British officials and art. 14 was directed at the unlawful invasion of privacy rights of those officials. That the drafters of the Fourth Amendment subsequently chose to replicate the words used in art. 4 cannot support a conclusion that we are compelled to act in lockstep with the United States Supreme Court when it interprets that amendment. Massachusetts v. Gonsalves, 429 Mass. 658; 711 N. E. 2d 108; 1999. pg8. The Massachusetts Supreme Court decided to use their constitution to make a decision in this case. They felt that their own constitution was enough to ensure their citizen’s liberty. Their own constitution would be fair in protecting liberty, because the initial attempt was to prevent the same type of tyranny that the colonist endured. Since the United States Constitution was derived from their constitution, hen the rights provided by their constitution would be broader.
Judge Ireland’s Concurrence: Judge Ireland concurred with the majority. His point was that allowing police officers to ask a driver or passenger out of a vehicle, would be an invitation to more discrimination and racial profiling. “I write separately, however, to stress the dangers posed by unfetted police power to order individuals out of automobile without justification. the grant of such power is certainly, as the majority notes, “a clear invitation to discriminatory enforce of the rule. ” This is precisely the power that art 14 was adapted to guard against. Massachusetts v.
Gonsalves, 429 Mass. 658; 711 N. E. 2d 108; 1999. pg9. He stated that there were many cases where police officers have abused their power by pulling over minorities. “One study found that seventy percent of cars stopped and searched on Interstate 95 in Maryland were driven by black people. ” Massachusetts v. Gonsalves, 429 Mass. 658; 711 N. E. 2d 108, 1999. pg9 (Judge Ireland’s concurrence). He further reasoned that to agree with the decision in In Pennsylvania v. Mimms 234 U. S. 106, 111, 54L. Ed. 2d 331 98S. Ct. 330(1997), would do nothing but undermine what the colonist were trying to prevent.
And that the only way to prevent such problems as racial profiling, is to remove the authority of the police to implement exit auto orders during a simple traffic stop. Judge Fried’s Dissent: Judge Fried dissented to the majority opinion of the court. He agreed with the majority opinion in Mimms. He strongly disagreed with the court’s decision to abandon the ruling of the United States Supreme Courts ruling in Mimms. His reasoning was that the United States Supreme Court’s decision was for a reason. They were trying to prevent cops from being murdered while making a stop. “In extending the rule to passengers in
Wilson, the court stated that “danger to an officer from a traffic stop is likely to be greater when there are passengers in addition to the driver in the stopped car. While there is not the same basis for ordering the passengers out of the car as there is for ordering the driver out, the addition intrusion on the passenger is minimal. ” Massachusetts v. Gonsalves, 429 Mass. 658; 711 N. E. 2d 108; 1999. pg11. He agreed with the majority opinion in Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U. S. 106, 111, 54 L. Ed. 2d 331, 98 S. Ct. 330 (1997) and Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U. S. That passengers might be just as dangerous as the driver.
Asking, the passengers in addition to the driver to get out of the vehicle, is but a minor inconvenience when compared to the safety of an officer. Conclusion: In Pennsylvania v. Mimms 234 U. S. 106, 111, 54L. Ed. 2d 331 98S. Ct. 330(1997) and Maryland v. Wilson 519 U. S. 408; 117 S. Ct. the United States Supreme Court interpreted the Fourth Amendment right against illegal searches and seizures as not including the right to privacy during stops for a traffic violation. They concentrated on the safety of a police officer instead of an idividual’s right to privacy. In Massachusetts v. Gonsalves, 429 Mass. 658; 711 N. E. 108; 1999, Massachusetts didn’t confirm to the rulings of the United States Supreme Court, instead they used their own constitution to determine whether a minor intrusion of privacy was a violation of privacy. Their decision to rule on this issue was independent of the United States Constitution, proved that a State Supreme Court doesn’t necessarily have to confirm to the United States Constitution, as long as it doesn’t take away an individual’s right. The state can expand on rights it can’t take away rights.
They succeeded in expanding the right to privacy of their citizens. Massachusetts v. Gonsalves, 429 Mass. 58; 711 N. E. d 108; 1999, provides broader rights for the individuals, unlike the ruling of the United States Supreme Court in both Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U. S. 106, 111, 54 L. Ed. 2d 331, 98 S. Ct. 330 (1997) and Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U. S. Therefore it is a better ruling for the individual not the police. It is better because Massachusetts Supreme Court realized that there is a problem with the abuse of police power, and following the United States Supreme Court’s ruling would only promote such problem as racial profiling and police abuse. The United States Supreme Court’s ruling in Mimms and Wilson, were ore about protecting law enforcement.
The majority stressed the importance of an officer’s safety and not the individual’s right to privacy. They saw the right to privacy as minor when compared to the safety of an officer. This Ruling has flaws because the United States Supreme Court failed to realize that not all situations during a stop posed a treat to an office. Only a small percentage of traffic violation stops are potential dangers and when compared to amount of individuals who’s right to privacy has been violated by an officer, who abuses his power, then an officer’s safety is minor.