Pennsylvania v. Mimms Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained

Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks ► www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o...
Pennsylvania v. Mimms | 434 U.S. 106 (1977)
Under the Fourth Amendment, people have a right to be free of unreasonable intrusions on their personal liberty. A police traffic stop is an intrusion. A driver’s exit from the vehicle, if ordered by the officer, is another intrusion, albeit an incremental one. In Pennsylvania versus Mimms, we take a look at the reasonableness of an incremental intrusion resulting from an officer’s policy of routinely ordering drivers from their vehicles without regard to suspicion of wrongdoing.
Two Philadelphia police officers stopped a car to issue a traffic summons for an expired license plate. The car was driven by Harry Mimms. One officer had a policy of ordering all drivers out of stopped vehicles, even drivers pulled over for traffic violations. Despite seeing nothing unusual, the officer directed Mimms out of his car. Mimms complied. Once Mimms had alighted, the officer noticed a potential concealed weapon under Mimms’s jacket. A frisk revealed a concealed, loaded revolver tucked inside Mimms’s pants. Mimms was arrested and indicted for carrying a concealed, deadly weapon and carrying an unlicensed firearm.
The trial court denied Mimms’s motion to suppress the firearm evidence, so the prosecution entered the revolver into evidence at trial. Mimms was convicted and appealed to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, arguing that the officer’s order to exit the vehicle was an unconstitutional seizure. According to Mimms, the firearm evidence was fruit of an unconstitutional search because its discovery directly resulted from an exit order that unreasonably infringed on Mimms’s liberty. The court agreed. The state then appealed to the United States Supreme Court, which granted cert.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: www.quimbee.com/cases/pennsyl...
The Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o...
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: www.quimbee.com/cases/pennsyl...
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our KZbin Channel ► kzbin.info_...
Quimbee Case Brief App ► www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o...
Facebook ► / quimbeedotcom
Twitter ► / quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries

[@katgrant8885]

Since clearly someone needs to say this, the company who posted this makes material for law school students and this is just a brief of the case. This is in no way meant to be exhaustive, it’s an overview meant for studying for the bar or law school exams.

[@johnvines4875]

Please add the year, this will be helpful Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (1977),

[@Stop_Motion_Hub]

anyone who is familiar with law will be upset over this video

[@kinginc2000]

That's a ruling/case not a law. The video is going over the case, and the standard it created. Which is allowing the police to remove you from vehicles. This gave police he ultimate power of retaliation.

[@gimmealatte]

This is the type of content that people watch once and magically think it still isnt a law. This shit is going to get people hurt, quit spreading false info.

[@coccconut]

Wasting my time with an unsolicited ad and incomplete information under a click bait title is not a good way to drum up business

[@InstructorMike]

So we’re just gonna leave it there? We’re not gonna explain the holding of the supreme court after they granted certiorari?

[@fa6106]

EXACTLY!!!!! Every one of these videos BUT DOESNT GIVE A DARN CONCLUSION….

[@GetOffMyStoop]

Thank goodness this only has 29k views.

[@mimikyoo]

It's the fnaf voice guy!

[@EMJE272]

This video is incomplete. Police do have the right to order you from your vehicle when conducting a lawful traffic stop.

[@aaronatwood9361]

If police can order me. I can order them. They dont have a single right an individual doesnt have.

[@EMJE272]

@@aaronatwood9361 read the case law nitwit

[@aaronatwood9361]

@@EMJE272 could care less about case law. I can order the cop out of his car before he can order me to. All I have to do is do something to get pulled over and I've ordered him out of his car also. He cant order me out of the car if I haven't done anything to get pulled over. Fuck a police officer who thinks they have special rights or any civilian that thinks the cop does also. Both are equally useless.

[@EMJE272]

If you READ Penns v. mimms it explains it all. Going off on The 2nd amendment of the Constitution in this discussion has no bearing here.

[@gabbylevalley5613]

@@aaronatwood9361 The cops job ordered them out of the car.... not you... you're being kinda arrogant tbh😕

[@mariegrayson628]

Is this platform safe to follow when trying to learn case law? Seems misleading?

[@artn3rd265]

Whose the voice actor for this?

[@tonybarretto1628]

The Supreme Court granted what ? This is a basic video explaining in laymen’s terms. So it stupid how it uses an legal term at the end to say the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the lower court

[@LINDAJX7]

a "Cert" or. Certiorari, basically the approval to have the chance to be heard in The Supreme Court

[@readytogo6569]

What the he!! does “Which granted cert” mean?

[@BenCasarez]

💥 Wrong ask-hole, The Supreme Court's decision in Mimms v. Pennsylvania, which allows officers to order the driver from a lawfully stopped vehicle; examines the Supreme Court's extension of this authority to passengers within the vehicle, decided in Maryland v. Wilson 🤨

[@Philip0209]

Granted cert? What? So what was the end outcome?

[@alexflores5832]

I thought so too! 😂😂😂

[@AmericanConstitution]

They where set free...... but by that time they had already served their time.... which means erase the felony and sue under Title 42 usc 1983 for false imprisonment, violation of Constitutionally secured rights, etc....

[@DIYStudioschannel]

Your video is missing A LOT of information... For example, it is NOT illegal for an Officer to ask you to step out of Your car for his safety. Therefore, this is why Mimms lost the case and was charged.

[@DIYStudioschannel]

@Alex Holloway ok, whatever

[@DIYStudioschannel]

Ok...

[@AmericanConstitution]

It was overturned because after the stop and after they got ordered out, to search them they needed a warrant or probable cause that they where engaged in criminal activity... but since that was not proved they got their cases overturned...

[@jjmah7]

The last sentence of this video made zero sense to me

[@AmericanConstitution]

The last sentence means there is a part 2......certiorari

[@spiritmonroe3470]

These comments got my head SWIMMING what??????

[@whateveritwasitis]

all the B!@#$&^, but nobody downvoting, so it still shows up.

[@RogueLinux]

The police upset in the comment section are funny

[@Nobody-11B]

Well the US supreme Court did override the Pennsylvania supreme Court, saying that if they tell you to exit a vehicle you have to get out and that they can disarm you if they find a weapon whether it be legal or not. I think that's what everyone's getting upset about they forgot the second and even third case because Arizona supreme Court touched on this too. It is an inaccurate and incomplete video.

[@BrassBashers]

Basically an LEO can say you "make me feel uncomfortable" and can pull you out of your vehicle. And hold you on the side of the road. For an extended period of time. Because they got a "feeling" you are suspicious..... BS

[@vols2467]

Correct, other than the extended period of time

[@user-zn3zz4hp8q]

their investigative stop must be limited both in scope and duration.

[@footballwrestler61]

You guys do not do a very good job at explaining, I know your trying to be quick but you left a lot put.

[@hdtvcamera1]

If the police order you out of the car... Guess what? You get out or get charged. Love Donut Operator

[@haleyt3754]

Wow way to convince people to put themselves into more danger!!!! You better hope no one gets hurt because of this repulsive video

[@starbase51shiptestingfacil97]

Correction: Second Amendment clarification. "A well regulated Militia (armed civilians), being necessary to the security (defense) of a free State (nation), the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. It seems to be a hastily added and stop-gap (temporary) measure, due to the US not having a military in 1791. It was obsolete within a matter of decades if not years, when the US could afford a military to defend the nation. Gun violence being nothing new, even in the 1700s. Gun bans and gun control laws are also nothing new. It was meant for state/national defense, not for personal gun ownership. Analysis: This is one of the more complicated topics. We'll start with the gun as it is the most serious crime and contentious. Carrying an unlicensed concealed weapon is a felony. The gun falls under the category of contraband (illegal, unless licensed) ---but enjoys Constitutional Right level status (second only to Right to Free Speech). It helped win the War of Independence for the colonists and lawmakers of the United States of America, fighting off a tyrannical king in England. But It is a contraband and why it has Constitutional Right level status. It has very strict regulations because it's a deadly weapon. You need a permit/license from the police, then a background check when you go to purchase the weapon. While it's possible to say all that is unconstitutional (point of contention), in practice it's still a deadly weapon. In a civilized culture, it's not all that useful. A deadly toy for adults who haven't grown up or a deadly tool for criminals. Even in the hands of law enforcement, it can lead to homicide by police and criminal charges pressed against the officer. Which is why even with Constitutional Right level status,--- its limitation is enforced instead of limitations removed. Moving on to Search and Seizure, usually the police issue a citation for expired registration tag, and the driver is free to go without having to get out of the car. The problem with Pennsylvania vs Mimm is if there were no contraband found then the request to exit the car would have been unreasonable (contention). -It straddles the borderline of unreasonable search and legitimate request, hence the flip-flop from court to court. If the driver intends to shoot the police officer it doesn't matter if the officer tells the driver to get out of the vehicle. That it's safer for the police officer is a false conclusion and also after the fact. "At trial, the officer testified it was his practice to always order drivers out of their vehicle." Maybe involving expired registration or he's just lying. Very few traffic stops involve getting out of the car. It was judged not to be a violation of the 4th Amendment as no search was needed. While Mimm's was in the process of producing license and registration, officers noticed "a large bulge under the jacket" which they took to be an indication of a gun. They had probable suspicion and only required a cursory check to verify it was indeed a gun. There is some indication the police officer may have lied. Requesting the driver out of the car seems a bit suspicious.

[@TinsleyLaw]

I don't agree that the 2nd amendment is second only to the first. There is no hierarchy among fundamental rights even assuming private ownership of a firearm is one. In addition, the First amendment contains multiple fundamental rights within it, all which are arguably more important that the private ownership of firearms (however you choose to define 'arms' which clearly does not include a fully automatic machine gun or a rocket propelled grenade. Those have been illegal since 1932) So yea, whether the 2nd amendment is even fundamental at all is on somewhat shaky grounds and is of recent origin. If Roe v. Wade can go down after 50 years on the books , Heller v DC may be next though it may take a generation to get there.

[@starbase51shiptestingfacil97]

@@TinsleyLaw Free speech (which has been expanded to include unspecified basic freedom) is probably listed in the order of priority. Top of the list, you could say. If you examine the wording of the 2nd Amendment, it saids, "for the security of the free state" meaning to defend the United States, the people have the right to bare (own and carry) arms. But "well-regulated militia" has been superseded by a full-fledge military with full time soldiers. People have been using the 2nd Amendment to own guns for personal use, but due to it's dangerous nature and violent history, laws have been drawn up to limit it's ownership. That gun owners claiming use for personal "self-defense" is not really protected by the wording of the 2nd Amenedment. Arms as including weapons used by the military is accurate. It wasn't envisioned by the founders that the US would have a full-fledge military at the time of the writing. As I mentioned already, "security of the free state" and "well regulated-militia" was meant to mean defending the United States with an armed force. US has had a military since the 1800s. Unsolicated Analysis: Lives of Contrabands Guns: Constutional Level status (For the purposes of defending the US, armed forces being necessary, people have right to bare arms.) However as time passed, it's status has become more restricted as it's soul purpose is to kill someone or something from a distance. Even if it's not use to kill someone or something, it's destructive. (dangerous and violent). Alcohol: Legal, but also as time passed some restriction were placed. Prohibition (1919-1933) made alcohol illegal, but it lead to increase in crime rate and gun violence and turned out to be too impractical. It made some criminals wealthy or wealthier, although many did go to jail and only because alcholol was made illegal. Prohibition probably wasn't first time an attempt was made to curb alcholol consumption, but it was the largest attempt and most problematic. Prohobition had to be repealed in 1933. Marijuana: Made illegal in 1969. Some states like CA have made attempts to legalize it since 1996. Dangerous or harmful? Drugs: Smoking opium was made illegal in 1875. Cocaine illegal since 1914. What happens when you make it completely illegal. Prohibition shows, some people are willing to run the risk of fines and/or jail and not necessarily because of money. Those who aren't actually criminals are criminalized (drinking alcholol, Prohibition) and those that have a criminal inclination profit from it (Al Capone for example), at least till they get caught. Those that can stay "under the radar" however do, real criminals or not. Other problems, consuming of chemicals. Personal choice to take chemicals into their own bodies. Does government really have the right to involve themselves in personal choices of consumption? Gun rights originates from, days where "might makes right" or whoever kills the other guys makes the rules. As population becomes more civilizated need for deadly weapons decreases. Just needed some space to write down some thoughts.

[@CertifiedClapaholic]

Yikes. Most recent ruling determined THAT was a lie lmfaooo. Delete this one, OP.

[@starbase51shiptestingfacil97]

@@CertifiedClapaholic No, it just points to the fact even supreme court justices can't understand law text. 2nd Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Paraphrase: A well regulated group of armed civilians, being necessary to defend the nation, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. It was only true for a time (1791) and became obsolete in a matter of decades if not years, when the military took over the role of defending the nation. It's for national defense, not person gun ownership. What seems to have happened was, it became obsolete when the US could afford to raise a military, but later on gun nuts resurrected it, because of the last portion of text. It was dormant for so long, many simply forgot what it was really about.

[@CertifiedClapaholic]

@@starbase51shiptestingfacil97 absolutely negative. The whole point of the 2nd Amendment was that a standing military was a threat to individual liberty and that the people ought to be armed in case they needed protection from the tyranny that could arise from having such a powerful military threat. You must either not be American or you didn't pay attention in history class. Which one was it?

[@HeavyHanded]

Just glossing over the US supreme court's decision, very poor video.

[@brettthompson3828]

This isn't a very good video. If an officer tells you to get out your vehicle, you have to get out. Period

[@AmericanConstitution]

Yes they said that here, but to search them they needed a warrant or proof of criminal activity.....so for that part certiorari was granted meaning there's another story for the search...

[@israeliteonlycampkilluhi.o2108]

WHAT THIS VIDEO HIDES FROM PEOPLE IS THE SIMPLE FACT.. AN OFFICER CAN ONLY ORDER YOU OUT YOUR VEHICLE LEGALLY IF OFFICER* " BELIEVES YOU ARE ARMED AND A PRESENT DANGER"...

[@kinginc2000]

The courts erroneously ruled that a officer can order you out if you're operating a vehicle. Officers do not have to state why, giving them opportunity to invent a reason. While operating a vehicle, unless a officer unwittingly informs you that they are pulling you over for a illegitimate reason (suspicion). You can challenge if you have the means to.

[@israeliteonlycampkilluhi.o2108]

@@kinginc2000 So your Basically saying there is NO FREEDOM...weve all been Lied too??

[@kinginc2000]

@@israeliteonlycampkilluhi.o2108 Why do you think the ruling is so controversial. They allowed officers to just order you out of vehicles. Now identifying you is a state by state thing. This is why they are promoting recording, so you can hold them accountable for abusing their authority. And yes they lied to you. If you're operating a vehicle, do not have anything to record with and are ordered out, you have to comply unless you can prove on the spot that they are phishing.

[@Jr-fl2pq]

WTF THIS VIDEO IS MISLEADING AND WRONG

[@AmericanConstitution]

It's not a complete video......certiorari means check for part 2....

[@tomzimmerman8]

This video is warm, wet garbage.

[@cesarmoreta2876]

This video is incomplete and misleading!!! PLEASE educate yourself and not just say you know your rights but please DO know your rights! Officers DO have the right to give drivers lawful orders to step out their vehicle and as a driver you have to step out of the vehicle! This video sucks.

[@snakefinger]

In other words let them keep digging for shit that will get you killed. Let mims feel his life is over since he forgot he’s stra00ed and now he feels cornered and ready to shoot. When you could have given him a ticket and both been on your way.