Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (1977)

Facts

  • Philadelphia officers stopped Harry Mimms for driving with an expired license plate.
  • During the stop, an officer ordered Mimms to exit the vehicle and produce his license and registration.
  • As Mimms stepped out, the officer observed a large bulge under Mimms’s jacket.
  • The officer conducted a pat-down frisk and found a loaded .38-caliber revolver.
  • Mimms was charged and convicted of firearms offenses after the trial court denied his motion to suppress the gun.
  • The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed, reasoning the exit order was an unjustified seizure absent specific facts suggesting danger or criminal activity.
  • The U.S. Supreme Court granted review.

Issues

  1. Whether, after a lawful traffic stop, ordering the driver to exit the vehicle is an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment.
  2. Whether an officer may conduct a Terry pat-down after observing a bulge in the driver’s clothing following the exit order.

Decision

  • The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and reinstated the conviction.
  • The Court held that, once a vehicle is lawfully stopped for a traffic violation, an officer may order the driver to exit the vehicle without additional, case-specific suspicion.
  • The Court further held that the observed bulge provided specific, articulable facts supporting a reasonable belief Mimms was armed, making the protective frisk reasonable under Terry v. Ohio.
  • Fourth Amendment reasonableness is assessed by balancing the government interest against the incremental intrusion on personal liberty.
  • During a lawful traffic stop, an officer may direct the driver to exit the vehicle as a safety measure; the added intrusion is minimal compared to officer-safety concerns.
  • A protective pat-down is permissible when specific, articulable facts would cause a reasonable officer to believe the person may be armed and dangerous.
  • Evidence found during a lawful Terry frisk following a lawful stop and permissible control of the driver’s movements is not subject to suppression on Fourth Amendment grounds.

Conclusion

The Court held that officers may, as a general rule, order a driver out of a lawfully stopped vehicle, and may conduct a Terry frisk when observable facts—such as a conspicuous bulge—support a reasonable belief the driver is armed and dangerous.