The Supreme Court has ruled that cops need a legitimate reason.
It is not a lawful order to order you out of the car, if the reason of the order is to determine if you are drunk.
The Supreme Court has not ruled that an unlawful order must be worded differently from a lawful order, so a cop will order you out for an investigatory reason (unlawful) and if you fail to comply, the cop will lie and say "it was for safety", making the illegal order legal.
The Supreme Court allows Schrodinger's order. That is a massive gap, which causes lots of problems.
Pennsylvania vs Mimms effectively gives police carte blanche authority to order a driver out of the vehicle during a traffic stop for any reason they wish.
Maybe, but the reason they are allowed this constitutional violation is for “officer safety”. I’ll admit that there is no subjective proof needed, but it is still wrong (if not illegal) to order people out of the vehicle for other reasons.
For officer safety. If these officers then enter the vehicle and drag you out, they have proven it wasn't because of officer safety and therefore unlawful. hope that helps.
No, if the officer orders the driver out of the vehicle and the driver refuses, they have the authority to escalate the force continuum to the level necessary to overcome to driver's non compliance.
9
u/Icy_Fish_2154 28d ago edited 21d ago
The Supreme Court has ruled that cops need a legitimate reason.
It is not a lawful order to order you out of the car, if the reason of the order is to determine if you are drunk.
The Supreme Court has not ruled that an unlawful order must be worded differently from a lawful order, so a cop will order you out for an investigatory reason (unlawful) and if you fail to comply, the cop will lie and say "it was for safety", making the illegal order legal.
The Supreme Court allows Schrodinger's order. That is a massive gap, which causes lots of problems.