Path: ordeal.cts.com!newshub.cts.com!news.aloha.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-stk-3.sprintlink.net!xfer.kren.nm.kr!mr.net!visi.com!uunet!in1.uu.net!129.22.8.64!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!cwrusc!courts From: [c--ur--s] at [usenet.ins.cwru.edu] Newsgroups: freenet.govt.hermes.opinions,courts.usa.federal.supreme Subject: 95-1268.ZO Opinion Date: 19 Feb 1997 16:59:59 GMT Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA) Lines: 192 Approved: [c--ur--s] at [usenet.ins.cwru.edu] Message-ID: <5efbif$[1 nu] at [usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu]> NNTP-Posting-Host: cwrusc.ins.cwru.edu NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Wash- ington, D.C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES -------- No. 95-1268 -------- MARYLAND, PETITIONER v. JERRY LEE WILSON on writ of certiorari to the court of special appeals of maryland [February 19, 1997] Chief Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the Court. In this case we consider whether the rule of Pennsyl- vania v. Mimms, 434 U. S. 106 (1977), that a police officer may as a matter of course order the driver of a lawfully stopped car to exit his vehicle, extends to passengers as well. We hold that it does. At about 7:30 p.m. on a June evening, Maryland state trooper David Hughes observed a passenger car driving southbound on I-95 in Baltimore County at a speed of 64 miles per hour. The posted speed limit was 55 miles per hour, and the car had no regular license tag; there was a torn piece of paper reading -Enterprise Rent-A- Car- dangling from its rear. Hughes activated his lights and sirens, signaling the car to pull over, but it contin- ued driving for another mile and a half until it finally did so. During the pursuit, Hughes noticed that there were three occupants in the car and that the two passengers turned to look at him several times, repeatedly ducking below sight level and then reappearing. As Hughes approached the car on foot, the driver alighted and met him halfway. The driver was trembling and appeared extremely nervous, but nonetheless produced a valid Connecticut driver's license. Hughes instructed him to return to the car and retrieve the rental documents, and he complied. During this encounter, Hughes noticed that the front-seat passenger, respondent Jerry Lee Wilson, was sweating and also appeared extremely nervous. While the driver was sitting in the driver's seat looking for the rental papers, Hughes ordered Wilson out of the car. When Wilson exited the car, a quantity of crack cocaine fell to the ground. Wilson was then arrested and charged with possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. Before trial, Wilson moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that Hughes' ordering him out of the car constituted an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment. The Circuit Court for Baltimore County agreed, and granted respondent's motion to suppress. On appeal, the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland affirmed, 106 Md. App. 24, 664 A. 2d 1 (1995), ruling that Pennsylvania v. Mimms does not apply to passengers. The Court of Appeals of Maryland denied certiorari. 340 Md. 502, 667 A. 2d 342 (1995). We granted certiorari, 518 U. S. ___ (1996), and now reverse. In Mimms, we considered a traffic stop much like the one before us today. There, Mimms had been stopped for driving with an expired license plate, and the officer asked him to step out of his car. When Mimms did so, the officer noticed a bulge in his jacket that proved to be a .38-caliber revolver, whereupon Mimms was arrested for carrying a concealed deadly weapon. Mimms, like Wilson, urged the suppression of the evidence on the ground that the officer's ordering him out of the car was an unreasonable seizure, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, like the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, agreed. We reversed, explaining that -[t]he 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,'- 434 U. S., at 108-109 (quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1, 19 (1968)), and that reasonableness -depends `on a balance between the public interest and the individual's right to personal security free from arbitrary interfer- ence by law officers,'- id., at 109 (quoting United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U. S. 873, 878 (1975)). On the public interest side of the balance, we noted that the State -freely concede[d]- that there had been nothing unusual or suspicious to justify ordering Mimms out of the car, but that it was the officer's -practice to order all drivers [stopped in traffic stops] out of their vehicles as a matter of course- as a -precautionary measure- to protect the officer's safety. Id., at 109-110. We thought it -too plain for argument- that this justification-officer safety-was -both legitimate and weighty.- Id., at 110. In addition, we observed that the danger to the officer of standing by the driver's door and in the path of oncoming traffic might also be -appreciable.- Id., at 111. On the other side of the balance, we considered the intrusion into the driver's liberty occasioned by the officer's ordering him out of the car. Noting that the driver's car was already validly stopped for a traffic infraction, we deemed the additional intrusion of asking him to step outside his car -de minimis.- Ibid. Accord- ingly, we concluded that -once a motor vehicle has been lawfully detained for a traffic violation, the police officers may order the driver to get out of the vehicle without violating the Fourth Amendment's proscription of unreasonable seizures.- Id., at 111, n. 6. Respondent urges, and the lower courts agreed, that this per se rule does not apply to Wilson because he was a passenger, not the driver. Maryland, in turn, argues that we have already implicitly decided this question by our statement in Michigan v. Long, 463 U. S. 1032 (1983), that -[i]n [Mimms], we held that police may order persons out of an automobile during a stop for a traffic violation,- id., at 1047-1048 (emphasis added), and by Justice Powell's statement in Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U. S. 128 (1978), that -this Court determined in [Mimms] that passengers in automobiles have no Fourth Amendment right not to be ordered from their vehicle, once a proper stop is made,- id., at 155, n. 4 (Powell, J., joined by Burger, C. J., concurring) (emphasis added). We agree with respondent that the former statement was dictum, and the latter was contained in a concur- rence, so that neither constitutes binding precedent. We must therefore now decide whether the rule of Mimms applies to passengers as well as to drivers. On the public interest side of the balance, the same weighty interest in officer safety is present regardless of whether the occupant of the stopped car is a driver or passenger. Regrettably, traffic stops may be dangerous encounters. In 1994 alone, there were 5,762 officer assaults and 11 officers killed during traffic pursuits and stops. Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Reports: Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted 71, 33 (1994). In the case of passengers, the danger of the officer's standing in the path of oncoming traffic would not be present except in the case of a passenger in the left rear seat, but the fact that there is more than one occupant of the vehicle increases the possible sources of harm to the officer. On the personal liberty side of the balance, the case for the passengers is in one sense stronger than that for the driver. There is probable cause to believe that the driver has committed a minor vehicular offense, but there is no such reason to stop or detain the passengers. But as a practical matter, the passengers are already stopped by virtue of the stop of the vehicle. The only change in their circumstances which will result from ordering them out of the car is that they will be outside of, rather than inside of, the stopped car. Outside the car, the passengers will be denied access to any possible weapon that might be concealed in the interior of the passenger compartment. It would seem that the possibility of a violent encounter stems not from the ordinary reaction of a motorist stopped for a speeding violation, but from the fact that evidence of a more serious crime might be uncovered during the stop. And the motivation of a passenger to employ violence to prevent apprehension of such a crime is every bit as great as that of the driver. We think that our opinion in Michigan v. Summers, 452 U. S. 692 (1981), offers guidance by analogy here. There the police had obtained a search warrant for contraband thought to be located in a residence, but when they arrived to execute the warrant they found Summers coming down the front steps. The question in the case depended -upon a determination whether the officers had the authority to require him to re-enter the house and to remain there while they conducted their search.- Id., at 695. In holding as it did, the Court said: -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 trans- action that may give rise to sudden violence or fran- tic efforts to conceal or destroy evidence. The risk of harm to both the police and the occupants is minimized if the officers routinely exercise unques- tioned command of the situation.- Id., at 702-703 (footnote omitted). In summary, 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 additional intrusion on the passenger is minimal. We therefore hold that an officer making a traffic stop may order passengers to get out of the car pending comple- tion of the stop. The judgment of the Court of Special Appeals of Mary- land is reversed, and the case is remanded for proceed- ings not inconsistent with this opinion. It is so ordered.