observing that “due to the nature of the potential danger, an officer’s concerns can only increase with the number of occupants in a car” (italics in original)
How later courts described this case
- observing that “due to the nature of the potential danger, an officer’s concerns can only increase with the number of occupants in a car” (italics in original)
- to mitigate danger in traffic stops, police “may request both drivers and their passengers to alight from a lawfully stopped car without reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot”
- as part of a lawful traffic stop, a police officer may order occupants out of a vehicle, given the inherent risk associated with vehicle stops
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
DEL SOLE, Judge,
concurring and dissenting statement.
I concur with the result reached by the Majority. Like Judge Beck, I too conclude that this matter is not presented to us in the form of a state constitutional issue. See Commonwealth v. Dorsey, 439 Pa.Super. 494 , 654 A.2d 1086 (Ford Elliott Dissenting Opinion) (1995).
While I agree with the result reached by the Majority in affirming the trial court’s decision not to suppress evidence, I disagree with the need, in this case, to make so sweeping an analysis and pronouncement. The trial court found that the actions of the police officer were in keeping with the mandates of Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 , 98 S.Ct. 330 , 54 L.Ed.2d 331 (1977) and Commonwealth v. Elliott, 376 Pa.Super 536, 546 A.2d 654 (1988). With this I agree. In addition, I believe that Commonwealth v. Baer, 439 Pa.Super. 437 , 654 A.2d 1058 (1994) is dispositive of this matter.
The trial judge determined:
The robbery was reported over the police radio as a shooting which occurred about 3:23 a.m. and a hospital case. The information was reported as two black males in a vehicle traveling south bound away from the store. Police sergeant James Owens who heard the report, was enroute to the scene when he saw a light blue Malibu Classic automobile with two black males traveling away from the scene. He saw no license plate on the vehicle. It had a homemade *530 paper plate for a license plate. He made the “U” turn; followed the vehicle; radioed his plan and then stopped the vehicle for investigation. As he approached the vehicle he told the driver to get out and hand him the auto registration card. He told them that the purpose of the stop was to investigate the non-license plate. He also told them that he was investigating the shooting at the Dunkin’ Donut Shop. He told the second male to also get out, the officer observed a third male [Timothy Brown] in the back seat crouched down behind the drivers seat. ... he told that male to also get out ...
Trial court opinion pp 2 & 3.
Given Sergeant Owens’ knowledge of the recent murder and robbery which involved the use of guns, his observation of a vehicle in the early morning hours traveling away from the scene, and ultimately the presence of this defendant hiding in thé vehicle, I agree with the trial court that sufficient facts were presented to support Sergeant Owens’ belief that criminal activity was afoot and that his safety was at risk. Under established case law, that is all that was necessary. The issue which the Majority seeks to decide is not present in this case, and should await decision until a case with appropriate facts arises. As it stands, the Majority’s pronouncement is dictum.