PA: Passenger may be ordered to remain or get out of a vehicle during a traffic stop

“[*P13] In the instant case, however, we are asked to consider as a matter of first impression in this Commonwealth whether an officer may similarly order a passenger of a lawfully stopped vehicle to remain inside or get back into the vehicle. We join the numerous other state and federal courts which have held that an officer may, in fact, do so without violating an individual’s Fourth Amendment rights.” For the first time, Pennsylvania follows Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (1977), and Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U.S. 408 (1995) under state law, which it had practically done, anyway. Commonwealth v. Pratt, 2007 PA Super 217, 930 A.2d 561 (2007).

Convict plaintiff already in prison could not make a Fourth Amendment false arrest claim concerning allegations made by prison officials that he was involved in an escape attempt and was put in Ad Seg as a result. Zimmerman v. Seyfert, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52388 (N.D. N.Y. July 19, 2007).*

The search of a box with a relatively small quantity of some meth ice in it was harmless on the totality. There was significantly more ice testified to procured and sold by defendant, and this seizure was not even mentioned in the closing argument. United States v. Aguilar, 237 Fed. Appx. 956 (5th Cir. 2007) (unpublished):

There was overwhelming evidence that Aguilar purchased ice methamphetamine in quantities of quarter-pounds and larger from two different suppliers, that he sold ice on numerous occasions in quantities ranging from grams to ounces, and that he and a supplier opened a used car business together as a front for their drug business. Although the evidence against Aguilar consisted largely of the testimony of informants, there is no basis for concluding that the jury would have rejected the informant testimony in the absence of the evidence of the methamphetamine found in the box.

Window tint violation justified defendant’s stop. Since the officer could not see the people inside, he ordered them all out. When the door opened, he could smell marijuana, and that justified the search. United States v. Moody, 240 Fed. Appx. 858 (11th Cir. 2007) (unpublished).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.