Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
8 Pennsylvania opinions name it 2 courts 1989–2018 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Pennsylvania courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Commonwealth v. Elliottgreen2 sentences1989The Elliott court did not find it necessary to extend the holding in Mimms to passengers under the facts of that case, but held that where *620 a police officer has lawfully stopped a vehicle for a traffic violation, the officer may order a passenger to alight from the vehicle when he has an articulable basis to believe that criminal activity is afoot without violating the Fourth Amendment. 376 Pa.Super. at 549 , 546 A.2d at 660 . 1989The Elliott court did not find it necessary to extend the holding in Mimms to passengers under the facts of that case, but held that where *620 a police officer has lawfully stopped a vehicle for a traffic violation, the officer may order a passenger to alight from the vehicle when he has an articulable basis to believe that criminal activity is afoot without violating the Fourth Amendment. 376 Pa.Super. at 549 , 546 A.2d at 660 . | 1 | 3 |
Commonwealth v. Hamiltongreen2 sentences1996“Confusion had arisen in recent case law as to whether, in order to stop a vehicle for a traffic violation, the officer must possess ‘probable cause to believe’ or a ‘reasonable suspicion to believe’ that a violation of the Vehicle Code had occurred.” Commonwealth v. Hamilton, 543 Pa. 612 , 673 A.2d 915, 918 (1996). 1996“Confusion had arisen in recent case law as to whether, in order to stop a vehicle for a traffic violation, the officer must possess ‘probable cause to believe’ or a ‘reasonable suspicion to believe’ that a violation of the Vehicle Code had occurred.” Commonwealth v. Hamilton, 543 Pa. 612 , 673 A.2d 915, 918 (1996). | 1 | 2 |
Commonwealth v. Mosergreen1 sentence2018See also Commonwealth v. Moser , 757 A.2d 377 , 379 (Pa.Super. 2000) (finding officers who had initially stopped a vehicle for a traffic violation, were entitled to continue to detain the occupants to see if the vehicle was stolen given that neither the driver nor the passenger could show that they owned or had permission to drive the vehicle). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Lindblomgreen1 sentence2016Commonwealth v. Lindblom, 854 A.2d 604, 607 (Pa. Super. 2004). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Mimmsgreen2 sentences2007See Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 , 98 S.Ct. 330 , 54 L.Ed.2d 331 (1977) ( Mimms II ) (overruling our Supreme Court's decision in Commonwealth v. Mimms, 471 Pa. 546 , 370 A.2d 1157 (1977) ( Mimms I ) and permitting an officer to order a driver out of a vehicle as a matter of course); Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U.S. 408 , 117 S.Ct. 882 , 137 L.Ed.2d 41 (1997) (extending Mimms II to allow an officer to order a passenger out of a vehicle as a matter of course). 2007See Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 , 98 S.Ct. 330 , 54 L.Ed.2d 331 (1977) ( Mimms II ) (overruling our Supreme Court's decision in Commonwealth v. Mimms, 471 Pa. 546 , 370 A.2d 1157 (1977) ( Mimms I ) and permitting an officer to order a driver out of a vehicle as a matter of course); Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U.S. 408 , 117 S.Ct. 882 , 137 L.Ed.2d 41 (1997) (extending Mimms II to allow an officer to order a passenger out of a vehicle as a matter of course). | 1 | 1 |
Pennsylvania v. Mimmsgreen2 sentences2007See Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 , 98 S.Ct. 330 , 54 L.Ed.2d 331 (1977) ( Mimms II ) (overruling our Supreme Court's decision in Commonwealth v. Mimms, 471 Pa. 546 , 370 A.2d 1157 (1977) ( Mimms I ) and permitting an officer to order a driver out of a vehicle as a matter of course); Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U.S. 408 , 117 S.Ct. 882 , 137 L.Ed.2d 41 (1997) (extending Mimms II to allow an officer to order a passenger out of a vehicle as a matter of course). 2007See Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 , 98 S.Ct. 330 , 54 L.Ed.2d 331 (1977) ( Mimms II ) (overruling our Supreme Court's decision in Commonwealth v. Mimms, 471 Pa. 546 , 370 A.2d 1157 (1977) ( Mimms I ) and permitting an officer to order a driver out of a vehicle as a matter of course); Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U.S. 408 , 117 S.Ct. 882 , 137 L.Ed.2d 41 (1997) (extending Mimms II to allow an officer to order a passenger out of a vehicle as a matter of course). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Anthony Hardnettgreen2 sentences1994Mimms clearly holds that “officers may, consistent with the Fourth Amendment, exercise their discretion to require a driver who commits a traffic violation to exit the vehicle even though they lack any particularized reason for believing the driver possesses a weapon.” New York v. Class, 475 U.S. 106, 115 , 106 S.Ct. 960, 966 , 89 L.Ed.2d 81 (1986); [United States v. Hardnett, 804 F.2d 353, 358 (6th Cir.1986).] We need not go so far as to hold that an officer who has lawfully stopped a vehicle for a traffic violation may order a passenger out of the vehicle as a matter of course, in the absenc 1994Mimms clearly holds that "officers may, consistent with the Fourth Amendment, exercise their discretion to require a driver who commits a traffic violation to exit the vehicle even though they lack any particularized reason for believing the driver possesses a weapon." New York v. Class, 475 U.S. 106, 115 , 106 S.Ct. 960, 966 , 89 L.Ed.2d 81 (1986); [ United States v. Hardnett, 804 F.2d 353, 358 (6th Cir.1986).] We need not go so far as to hold that an officer who has lawfully stopped a vehicle for a traffic violation may order a passenger out of the vehicle as a matter of course, in the absen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Maryland v. Wilson
green
2 sentences2007See Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 , 98 S.Ct. 330 , 54 L.Ed.2d 331 (1977) ( Mimms II ) (overruling our Supreme Court's decision in Commonwealth v. Mimms, 471 Pa. 546 , 370 A.2d 1157 (1977) ( Mimms I ) and permitting an officer to order a driver out of a vehicle as a matter of course); Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U.S. 408 , 117 S.Ct. 882 , 137 L.Ed.2d 41 (1997) (extending Mimms II to allow an officer to order a passenger out of a vehicle as a matter of course). 2007See Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 , 98 S.Ct. 330 , 54 L.Ed.2d 331 (1977) ( Mimms II ) (overruling our Supreme Court's decision in Commonwealth v. Mimms, 471 Pa. 546 , 370 A.2d 1157 (1977) ( Mimms I ) and permitting an officer to order a driver out of a vehicle as a matter of course); Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U.S. 408 , 117 S.Ct. 882 , 137 L.Ed.2d 41 (1997) (extending Mimms II to allow an officer to order a passenger out of a vehicle as a matter of course). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Commonwealth v. Whitmyer
green
1 sentence2000In an effort to end the confusion surrounding this issue, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court recognized that the difference in the two phrases was merely semantic and concluded that police officers may stop a vehicle “whenever they have articulable and reasonable grounds to suspect that a violation of the Vehicle Code had occurred.” Hamilton, 673 A.2d at 918 *1293 (1996)(citing Commonwealth v. Whitmyer, 542 Pa. 545 , 668 A.2d 1118 (1995); 75 Pa.C.S. § 6308(b)). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
New York v. Class
green
2 sentences1994Mimms clearly holds that “officers may, consistent with the Fourth Amendment, exercise their discretion to require a driver who commits a traffic violation to exit the vehicle even though they lack any particularized reason for believing the driver possesses a weapon.” New York v. Class, 475 U.S. 106, 115 , 106 S.Ct. 960, 966 , 89 L.Ed.2d 81 (1986); [United States v. Hardnett, 804 F.2d 353, 358 (6th Cir.1986).] We need not go so far as to hold that an officer who has lawfully stopped a vehicle for a traffic violation may order a passenger out of the vehicle as a matter of course, in the absenc 1994Mimms clearly holds that “officers may, consistent with the Fourth Amendment, exercise their discretion to require a driver who commits a traffic violation to exit the vehicle even though they lack any particularized reason for believing the driver possesses a weapon.” New York v. Class, 475 U.S. 106, 115 , 106 S.Ct. 960, 966 , 89 L.Ed.2d 81 (1986); [United States v. Hardnett, 804 F.2d 353, 358 (6th Cir.1986).] We need not go so far as to hold that an officer who has lawfully stopped a vehicle for a traffic violation may order a passenger out of the vehicle as a matter of course, in the absenc | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.