Pennsylvania v. Mimms , 434 US 106 (1977), is a criminal law decision of the United States Supreme Court which states that a policeman orders a person to get out of the car after traffic stops and pat-down to inspect weapons not violating the Amendment Fourth United States Constitution.
Video Pennsylvania v. Mimms
Ikhtisar
In 1977, two police officers from the Philadelphia Police Department withdrew a vehicle driven by a young man by the name of Harry Mimms for an outdated plate. The officers instructed Mimms to get out of the vehicle; when Mimms meets, an officer sees a bulge in his trousers under his jacket, pat-downs, and finds weapons. Officers proceeded to arrest Mimms for carrying a concealed weapon of death and illegally carrying unlicensed firearms, an indictment punishable by Mimms. The conviction was overturned by the Pennsylvania High Court on December 5, 1977, which ruled that the evidence should be suppressed because the police violated the Fourth Amendment rights of Mimms. The United States Supreme Court in turn reversed the PSC's reversal, enforcing original convictions on the grounds that no violation of the Fourth Amendment has taken place.
​​â € <â €
The court at Terry v. Ohio states, "facts available to officers at the time of seizure or search 'guarantees a man with caution in the belief' that the action taken is appropriate." Therefore, the officer is entitled to arrest Mimms on indictment because he observed the bulge under his jacket.
Conclusion
The initial decision was favored by police officers at the Common Pleas Court in Philadelphia. The appeal was filed to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, which decided to support Mimms, and then the decision was reversed once again by the US Supreme Court. In a 6-3 per curiam decision, the US Supreme Court ruled against Mimms, stating that the order to exit the car was fair and did not violate the Fourth Amendment.
Order
It is considered normal for police officers to ask people in their vehicles to get out to prevent any danger that may occur to the officers. It is also safer to avoid the danger of coming traffic. Asking Mimms to step out of the car creates a bit of discomfort and reveals a little more than what was indicated before. Therefore, the bulge the officer saw as a serious threat to the officer. Anyone with this realization may have done a "down pat". The High Court of Pennsylvania's decision was revoked.
Maps Pennsylvania v. Mimms
The Pennsylvania Appeal
The Pennsylvania appellant requested the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's decision to reverse the belief in favor of Mimms for carrying firearms and lethal weapons without a license. The court overturned the verdict because "the revolver was arrested in a manner that violated the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States." Because the Supreme Court did not agree with the following verdict, they accepted the Commonwealth petition for certiorari and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's decision was reversed.
Facts before the Supreme Court
While on patrol in Philadelphia, two officers found Harry Mimms on the street, driving a license with an expired license plate. The two officers pulled over to get the tickets, one of the two officers stepped out of the car and walked to the vehicle where he asked Mimms to get out of the vehicle and show the driver's license and registration. While he also asked if Mimms had a gun in his vehicle. To assess the situation, the officer searched and searched for Mimms and found a.38 caliber pistol that was loaded. Passengers with Mimms are also found with.32 caliber weapons. The clerk went on to arrest Mimms under his account that he was carrying a deadly hidden weapon without a license. The movement to suppress the revolver was rejected and in court he was convicted of both charges. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court overturned the lower court, assuming that the revolver had to be suppressed because it had been found to violate the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania sees no problem in actions involving the withdrawal of the car, and even goes so far as to say that because of the observation of the bulge under the respondent's coat, the search was allowed. But the fact that the officer asked the defendant to get out of the vehicle creates a "seizure" forbidden. The absence of Mimms coming out of the vehicle, the officer will have no reason for reasonable suspicion, the required standard under Terry v. Ohio, 392 1 (1968). Because the weapon was discovered by unconstitutional action, it should be suppressed.
Opinion
The majority opinion
The court declared "fairness in all circumstances of a particular government invasion of the personal safety of citizens." "The reason depends... on the balance between public interest and individual rights for personal security free from arbitrary interference by law enforcement." Unlike in Terry v. Ohio , "infringement" of early freedom was allowed because the driver was driving with an outdated plate violating the Pennsylvania Department of Motor Vehicle Code. The only thing to decide, other than "down pat", is whether the initial authorization by the officer to inform the respondent to get out of the vehicle is allowed under the Fourth Amendment. Therefore, the court should focus on the violations resulting from the officers who asked the respondent to get out of the vehicle after being terminated legally.
The State of Pennsylvania believes that officers have no evidence to suspect Mimms during the termination of whether it was an unusual behavior or activity; there was no evidence during the patrol. The state finds that officers, as long as each traffic routinely stops, instructs the driver to get out of their vehicle. The state defended the officer, saying that this practice was used to prevent something from happening to officers and that could have made sense in such situations. Being in front of a clerk makes it impossible to have anything suspicious that is invisible if the driver tries to do something to harm the clerk.
There is a great risk to officers facing a man sitting in his vehicle at regular traffic stops. "According to one study, about 30% of police shootings occurred when a police officer approached a suspect sitting in a car." But one can not assume that traffic violations are more dangerous than other confrontations.
Another reason to make the action taken by the officer to ask the respondent to get out of the vehicle is more acceptable, is that it can prevent accidents accidents from approaching cars. Instead of discussing the problem while standing on the street, the clerk can ask the driver to get out of the car and move to the side of the road for further discussion. Now the question is whether there is an intrusion in the driver's personal freedom after the order to get out of the vehicle. The conclusion is that de minimis (low risk level). Officers have decided that drivers should be held for traffic calls, now is whether they should speak while the driver is sitting in the car or standing next to him. The act of getting out of the car is just for the safety of the officers and not a serious offense in the driver's freedom. The case of Terry v. Ohio states that "the facts available to officers at the time of foreclosure or search" guarantees a man with reasonable attention in the belief that the action taken is appropriate. " Due to the officer's actions to tell the driver to get out of the vehicle is justified, the observation of the bulge in the driver's jacket is considered to be dangerous to the officer and therefore he "has to be careful" to do the "tap". down. "The Supreme Court overturned the verdict by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
Disagreements
Judge Thurgood Marshall wrote a different opinion, stating that the officer's "friction" against Mimms could only be allowed under the Fourth Amendment if the search was for reasons to stop. The reason Mimms was withdrawn was due to an expired license plate, which had nothing to do with carrying a hidden weapon. This is where Marshall disagreed. Judges John Paul Stevens and William Brennan, bring different dissent that the court provides too much leeway in allowing officers to seek defendants for whatever reason is of concern.
See also
- Exclusion rule
- Motor vehicle exclusion
- Terry stops
References
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments