Police do not need any additional justification to order driver out of the vehicle after lawful traffic stop

People v. Ramirez (Cal. Ct. App., Aug. 20, 2024, No. G063224) 2024 WL 3869450, at *1

Summary: Under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, “once a vehicle has been lawfully detained for a traffic violation, a police officer may order the driver to exit the vehicle without any articulable justification.” (People v. Hoyos (2007) 41 Cal.4th 872 (Hoyos), citing Pennsylvania v. Mimms (1977) 434 U.S. 106, 111, fn. 6 (Mimms).)

Here, two police officers on routine patrol when they stopped a car for a traffic violation. About three minutes into the stop, Booth ordered the driver, Ramirez, out of his car. As Ramirez was being removed from the car, Driscoll saw a handgun just behind the driver’s seat.

Ramirez filed a motion to suppress the evidence. At a hearing on the motion, Officer Booth said he removed Ramirez from the car because he saw a bulge at Ramirez’s waistband, and he thought he may have been armed. The trial court granted the motion because there was no “change in circumstances” regarding the officers’ safety between the beginning of the stop and the point at which Ramirez was removed from his car. The Orange County District Attorney appealed.

Officer Booth was permitted to order Ramirez “to exit the vehicle without any articulable justification.”  The Court of Appeal reversed the dismissal order and remanded to the trial court with directions to deny Ramirez’s motion to suppress evidence.

Search and seizure

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated ….” (U.S. Const., 4th Amend.) A “search” is a governmental intrusion into an area where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. A “seizure” is either a governmental taking of a person’s property, or a governmental limitation on a person’s freedom of movement.

Police may temporarily detain (seize) a person without a warrant when they have a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. (Terry v. Ohio (1968) 392 U.S. 1, 10 (Terry).) An officer with a reasonable suspicion that a motorist has violated the Vehicle Code may stop the vehicle for a brief investigation. (People v. Miranda (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 917.) Generally, people have a privacy interest against unreasonable searches and seizures but have a reduced expectation of privacy while driving on public roadways.

A traffic stop constitutes a seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. (Rodriguez v. United States (2015) 575 U.S. 348, 355.) “Beyond determining whether to issue a traffic ticket, an officer’s mission” during a traffic stop typically “includes … checking the driver’s license, determining whether there are outstanding warrants against the driver, and inspecting the automobile’s registration and proof of insurance.” (Ibid.) “Like a Terry stop, the tolerable duration of police inquiries in the traffic-stop context is determined by the seizure’s ‘mission’—to address the traffic violation that warranted the stop, [citation] and attend to related safety concerns ….” (Id. at p. 354.) “Authority for the seizure thus ends when tasks tied to the traffic infraction are—or reasonably should have been—completed.” (Ibid.)

When Booth returned to Ramirez’s car at about three minutes into the stop, he ordered Ramirez to put down his phone, put his hands on his head, and exit the car. The Fourth Amendment requires no justification to order a driver out of a vehicle. After about a minute, Ramirez complied. Booth did not need to justify his reasons for ordering Ramirez out of the vehicle.

At this point, the mission of the traffic stop was not yet complete (dealing with the traffic violation and attending to officer safety concerns), so it would have been reasonable for Booth to briefly detain Ramirez outside of the car.

A few seconds after Ramirez exited the car (about four minutes into the stop), Officer Driscoll alerted Booth that there was a firearm in the car based on his plain view observation through a passenger side window. At that point, the officers objectively had probable cause to believe Ramirez was committing a felony by having a firearm concealed in the vehicle.

Ramirez’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizures or searches was not violated at any point during the traffic stop. The Court of Appeal reversed the ruling of the trial court, which was a dismissal of Ramirez’s criminal charges following the granting of his motion to suppress the evidence

The information provided on this website does not, and is not intended to, constitute legal advice; instead, all information, content, and materials available on this site are for general informational purposes only.  Information on this website may not constitute the most up-to-date legal or other information.