Hellow guys, Welcome to my website, and you are watching Pennsylvania v. Mimms Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained. and this vIdeo is uploaded by Quimbee at 2020-11-16T15:45:45-08:00. We are pramote this video only for entertainment and educational perpose only. So, I hop you like our website.
| Name | Pennsylvania v. Mimms Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained |
| Video Uploader | Video From Quimbee |
| Upload Date | This Video Uploaded At 16-11-2020 23:45:45 |
| Video Discription | Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview Pennsylvania v. Mimms | 434 U.S. 106 (1977) Under the Fourth Amendment, people have a right to be free of unreasonable intrusions on their personal liberty. A police traffic stop is an intrusion. A driver’s exit from the vehicle, if ordered by the officer, is another intrusion, albeit an incremental one. In Pennsylvania versus Mimms, we take a look at the reasonableness of an incremental intrusion resulting from an officer’s policy of routinely ordering drivers from their vehicles without regard to suspicion of wrongdoing. Two Philadelphia police officers stopped a car to issue a traffic summons for an expired license plate. The car was driven by Harry Mimms. One officer had a policy of ordering all drivers out of stopped vehicles, even drivers pulled over for traffic violations. Despite seeing nothing unusual, the officer directed Mimms out of his car. Mimms complied. Once Mimms had alighted, the officer noticed a potential concealed weapon under Mimms’s jacket. A frisk revealed a concealed, loaded revolver tucked inside Mimms’s pants. Mimms was arrested and indicted for carrying a concealed, deadly weapon and carrying an unlicensed firearm. The trial court denied Mimms’s motion to suppress the firearm evidence, so the prosecution entered the revolver into evidence at trial. Mimms was convicted and appealed to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, arguing that the officer’s order to exit the vehicle was an unconstitutional seizure. According to Mimms, the firearm evidence was fruit of an unconstitutional search because its discovery directly resulted from an exit order that unreasonably infringed on Mimms’s liberty. The court agreed. The state then appealed to the United States Supreme Court, which granted cert. Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/pennsylvania-v-mimms The Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/pennsylvania-v-mimms Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► https://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom Quimbee Case Brief App ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview Facebook ► https://www.facebook.com/quimbeedotcom/ Twitter ► https://twitter.com/quimbeedotcom #casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries |
| Category | Education |
| Tags | Pennsylvania v. Mimms | briefs | quimbee | law case | case brief example | brief case | case brief | press brief | case summaries | legal brief | how to brief a case | case brief template | legal brief case | how to write a case brief | legal brief example | sample case brief | case brief format | example of a brief | law briefs | legal brief definition | what is a brief in law | what is a case brief | court brief | brief definition law | legal brief template | facts of the case | facts in issue |
