Warning
Info
- - tl;dr
- - ICRA
- - Facts & Holding
- - DeepDive
0 0
Supreme Court of the United States - 434 U.S. 106, 54 L. Ed. 2d 331, 98 S. Ct. 330, 1977 U.S. LEXIS 157, SCDB 1977-012
DeepDiveHighlight a legal term to see the definition
The Supreme Court overturned Mimms' conviction for carrying a concealed deadly weapon and unlawfully carrying a firearm without a license. The lower court erred in its interpretation of the Fourth Amendment. The officer's order for Mimms to exit the car was a reasonable intrusion on personal security, not an impermissible "seizure." The State's justification for the officer's order, which is the safety of the officer, is both legitimate and significant. The court recognizes the high risk that an officer faces when approaching a person seated in a vehicle. Therefore, it would be unreasonable to require officers to take unnecessary risks in the performance of their duties.
Justice Marshall's dissenting opinion in the current case argues that the Court's decision departs from the principles established in Terry v. Ohio, which allowed for a "stop and frisk" when an officer has reasonable suspicion that the person may be armed and dangerous. The current case lacks such reasonable suspicion, and therefore the Court's decision is erroneous. The dissenting opinion further argues that the Court's decision to extend Terry's holding based solely on certiorari papers and to summarily reverse the judgment of Pennsylvania's highest court is troubling and may damage the Court's institutional credibility.
The dissenting opinion in this case criticizes the Supreme Court's adoption of a new, lesser standard of justification for police seizures without individualized inquiry into the facts justifying each intrusion. The reinstatement of Mimms' conviction is of minimal importance since he has already served his sentence. The concern for police officer safety is legitimate, but it is not a sufficient reason for the Supreme Court to rush to decide every new Fourth Amendment issue. The study cited in Adams v. Williams, which claims that 30% of police shootings occur when an officer approaches a suspect in a car, is not an accurate representation of the study itself. The figures do not provide enough information to support the assumption that ordering a routine traffic offender out of their car enhances officer safety. The writer proposes that a nationwide regulation should be carefully evaluated concerning the various situations it may be implemented.
LSD+ Case Briefs
Features
- DeepDive for detailed case analysis
- Over 50,000 existing case briefs
- Instant briefs for another 6,000,000 cases
- Highlight dictionary for legal term definitions
- Social learning with chat and high points
Over 50,000 Cases Briefed
LSD+ gives you access to over 50,000 case briefs, more than anyone else. Be the first to email us the website of a case brief product that offers you more case briefs and we'll give you a free year of LSD+.
14-Day Free Trial
Unlimited access. Read as much content as you want during your trial with no device limitations. Cancel any time during your trial and keep access for the full 14 days.
Integrated Legal Dictionary
Lawyers and judges love to use big words. And Latin, for some reason.
Highlight a legal term in LSD Briefs and get an instant, plain English definition. Try highlighting contract or specific performance. No need to search or read through a list of definitions, simply highlight the words you don’t know and our LSDefine integration will instantly give you a definition to any of over 30,000 legal terms.
DeepDive
DeepDive allows you to explore legal cases like never before. DeepDive offers multiple levels of case summaries, which empowers you to quickly and easily find the information you need to stay on top of readings. Easily navigate through summary levels and click on any text to get more detail, all the way down to the original legal case text.
Brief anything. Instantly.
Our proprietary state-of-the-art system can instantly brief over 6,000,000 US cases. That means we can probably brief that case that your professor assigned last night when she sent you a poorly scanned pdf and told you to read every third paragraph. Or maybe she uploaded it to Canvas and didn’t really tell you to read it, but you know you probably should. Tenure does wild things to good people.
Social Learning with Chat and High Points
Study groups are a great way to learn and explore a case. LSD has chat rooms for each case to let you ask questions across the community and hear what other students struggled with and how they put it all together. Learn the key points of every case from other LSD+ users and share your knowledge with LSD High Points.
Real-Time Brief Feedback
Don’t settle for mistakes in briefs that have been there for 10 years and never fixed. Find an issue or something missing from a brief? Down vote and we will make improvements. All of our case brief editors graduated from from T14 law schools.