Case law · Highest court · Federal

Pennsylvania v. Mimms

Decided
December 5, 1977
Docket
76-1830
Status
Published
Jurisdiction
Federal

Cited 3,269 timesNo negative treatment found in this library

What later courts said

  • holding that an officer may, as a matter of course, ask that a driver step out of the vehicle during a traffic stop — State v. Berrios (2007)
  • concluding that, under the principles of Terry, an officer could conduct a protective frisk for weapons after observing a bulge in the suspect’s jacket — State v. Ketelson (2011)
  • holding that a police officer may order the driver out of a lawfully stopped vehicle as a matter of course — United States v. Danny Lee Beatty (1999)

Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.

How the opinion begins

Per Curiam.

Petitioner Commonwealth seeks review of a judgment of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reversing respondent’s conviction for carrying a concealed deadly weapon and a firearm without a license. That court reversed the conviction because it held that respondent’s “revolver was seized in a [*107] manner which violated the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.” 471 Pa. 546, 548, 370 A. 2d 1157, 1158 (1977). Because we disagree with this conclusion, we grant the Commonwealth’s petition for certiorari and reverse the judgment of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

The facts are not in dispute. While on routine patrol, two Philadelphia police officers observed respondent 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 and asked respondent to step out of the car and produce his owner’s card and operator’s license. Respondent alighted, whereupon the officer noticed a large bulge under respondent’s sports jacket. Fearing that the bulge might be a weapon, the officer frisked respondent and discovered in his waistband a .38-caliber revolver loaded with five rounds of ammunition. The other occupant of the car was carrying a .32-caliber revolver. Respondent was immediately arrested and subsequently indicted for carrying a concealed deadly weapon and for unlawfully carrying a firearm without a license. His motion to suppress the revolver was denied; and, after a trial at which the revolver was introduced into evidence, respondent was convicted on both counts.

Cite this

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

Read the full opinion

Free account needed

Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.