434 U.S. 106 (1977)
Two Philadelphia police officers on routine patrol observed Harry Mimms driving an automobile with an expired license plate.1 The officers stopped the vehicle for the purpose of issuing a traffic summons.2
One of the officers approached Mimms and asked him to step out of the car and produce his owner's card and operator's license.3 Mimms alighted from the vehicle, at which point the officer noticed a large bulge under his sports jacket.4
Fearing the bulge might be a weapon, the officer frisked Mimms and discovered a .38-caliber revolver loaded with five rounds of ammunition in his waistband.5 The other occupant of the car was carrying a .32-caliber revolver.6 Mimms was immediately arrested and indicted for carrying a concealed deadly weapon and for unlawfully carrying a firearm without a license.7
After his motion to suppress the revolver was denied, the revolver was introduced into evidence at trial, and Mimms was convicted on both counts.8 The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reversed Mimms' conviction on the ground that the revolver had been seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment.9
The state court concluded that the officer's order to exit the car amounted to an impermissible seizure.10 The officer could not identify objective observable facts supporting a suspicion of criminal activity or a threat to police safety.11 This led directly to the observation of the bulge and the subsequent pat-down.12
By the time the Commonwealth sought review in the United States Supreme Court, Mimms had completed the maximum term of his sentence.13 The Commonwealth filed a petition for certiorari, which the Court granted.14
Whether the order to get out of the car, issued after the driver was lawfully detained, was reasonable and thus permissible under the Fourth Amendment?15
The 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. Reasonableness depends on a balance between the public interest and the individual's right to personal security free from arbitrary interference by law officers.16
Yes. Two Philadelphia police officers on routine patrol observed Harry Mimms driving an automobile with an expired license plate. The officers stopped the vehicle for the purpose of issuing a traffic summons. One of the officers approached Mimms and asked him to step out of the car and produce his owner's card and operator's license. Mimms alighted from the vehicle, at which point the officer noticed a large bulge under his sports jacket.
Subsequently, fearing the bulge might be a weapon, the officer frisked Mimms and discovered a .38-caliber revolver loaded with five rounds of ammunition in his waistband.17 The other occupant was carrying a .32-caliber revolver.18 Mimms was arrested and indicted on weapons charges.19 After denial of his suppression motion the revolver was introduced at trial and he was convicted on both counts.20
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reversed, holding the exit order an impermissible seizure unsupported by objective facts indicating criminal activity or danger.21 By the time the Commonwealth petitioned for certiorari Mimms had completed his sentence, yet the United States Supreme Court granted review.22
The public interest in officer safety is legitimate and weighty because studies indicate a significant percentage of police shootings occur when an officer approaches a suspect seated in an automobile and because traffic stops carry appreciable risks.23 The incremental intrusion is de minimis because the driver is already lawfully detained and is merely asked to stand outside the vehicle rather than remain seated, exposing very little more of his person.24 This mere inconvenience cannot prevail against the officer-safety justification.25
The order to get out of the car was reasonable and thus permissible under the Fourth Amendment.26
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Marshall joined Justice Stevens' dissent but wrote separately to stress departure from Terry v. Ohio.27 He noted that Terry confined the frisk to situations where the officer believes the persons may be armed and presently dangerous, with the action reasonably related in scope to the circumstances justifying the initial interference.28 Here the stop rested solely on an expired license plate, bearing no relation to the order to exit the vehicle.29
Marshall also criticized the institutional harm of summarily reversing the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on certiorari papers in a case that barely escaped mootness and might be resolved against the state on remand under its own constitution.30
Joined by Justices Brennan And Marshall
Justice Stevens, joined by Justices Brennan and Marshall, dissented from both the grant of certiorari and the merits.31 He argued that the Court abandoned the central Fourth Amendment teaching requiring individualized inquiry into particular facts, instead adopting a general rule authorizing seizures without any articulable justification.32 Stevens challenged the factual premise drawn from the Bristow study, noting it did not show that ordering routine traffic violators out of cars reduces risk and might even increase danger.33
He emphasized that millions of traffic stops are not fungible and that the new standard eliminates effective judicial supervision, leaving police discretion without limits.34
Whether the officer was justified in conducting a limited search for weapons once the bulge under the driver's jacket had been observed?35
Under the standard enunciated in Terry v. Ohio, the officer is justified in conducting a limited search for weapons once he has reasonably concluded that the person whom he has legitimately stopped might be armed and presently dangerous.36 The standard is measured by whether the facts available to the officer at the moment warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that the action taken was appropriate.37
Yes. Once Mimms had alighted as lawfully ordered, the officer observed a large bulge under his sports jacket.38 That observation permitted the officer to conclude Mimms was armed and posed a serious and present danger to the officer's safety.39 Under the Terry standard any man of reasonable caution would have conducted the pat-down.40 The frisk was therefore justified by the facts available at the moment of the search.41
The officer was justified in conducting the limited search for weapons once the bulge had been observed.42
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Justices Brennan And Marshall
Justice Stevens argued that even if safety concerns exist the Terry standard already supplies a sufficient basis for protective measures whenever there is a real basis for concern.43 He questioned the need to eliminate the articulable-justification requirement and authorize indiscriminate invasions of liberty for every traffic violation no matter how petty.44 Stevens maintained that the added safety from ordering the driver out is of no value unless further precautionary measures such as a frisk are also taken, yet the Court's rule dispenses with any individualized showing.45