Opinion ID: 2586281
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Order to Exit the Car

Text: Defendant claims he was unlawfully detained either when the officer ordered him out of the car or during the period after he was ordered out of the car, and that there existed no reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity to justify his detention. Defendant's first contention fails because an officer making a traffic stop may, without violating the Fourth Amendment, order the driver and passengers to exit a car. ( Maryland v. Wilson (1997) 519 U.S. 408, 410, 415, 117 S.Ct. 882, 137 L.Ed.2d 41 ( Wilson ).) [10] Wilson extended to passengers the rule in Pennsylvania v. Mimms that 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. ( Wilson, supra, 519 U.S. at p. 410, 117 S.Ct. 882; Pennsylvania v. Mimms (1977) 434 U.S. 106, 111, fn. 6, 98 S.Ct. 330, 54 L.Ed.2d 331; People v. Maxwell (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 1004, 1009, 254 Cal.Rptr. 124.) Defendant relies on People v. Gonzalez (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 381, 386, 8 Cal. Rptr.2d 640, a case decided before Wilson that acknowledged a police officer could order a passenger out of a car lawfully detained for a traffic violation in order to protect the officer, or other reasonable justification. ( Maxwell supra, 206 Cal. App.3d at pp. 1009-1010, 254 Cal.Rptr. 124.) Thus, even under the holdings of the pre-Wilson cases, the officers were justified in ordering the codefendants to exit the car.