sir so why do I need to step out of this vehicle because there's a Supreme Court case ruling called Pennsylvania V Mims that a law enforcement officer can give you a lawful directive to exit the vehicle no you don't okay well I'm going to drag you out then go ahead drag me out go ahead and drag me out listen I'm calling my turn you can AR he no you ain't hey now you're going to ma me really this just happened in West Virginia an innocent couple was just trying to get to work they were pulled over by a police officer for going allegedly left of s the officer wrote a warning ticket and then demanded that they step out of the car after that traffic stop was over when the passenger refused he was maced and pulled out of the car can police officers order you out of the car even after the ticket or warning has been written and delivered I'll explain why this police officer does not understand Supreme Court case law as well as he thinks that he does also I'll show you something really shocking that this officer posted the social media several days after this occurred this is footage that was recently recorded out of Bellington West Virginia which is in Barber County West Virginia involving a guy named Vince and his longtime significant other so Vince was the passenger in a vehicle his significant other was driving him to work he works as a nurse believe in a nursing home and he really had to get there because the next shift was starting they needed him so it was a big hassle to get pulled over in this Tiny Town on the way to work he's going to be late so the reason for the Stop was left of center the traffic stop went fine really they gave the information and a warning was actually physically issued so the stop was over but then the officer says now I want you both to get out of the vehicle and he had to get to work so he begins to then say well why do you need this to get out of the vehicle and at that point Vince picks up his phone he starts filming but I have the actual police report here let me read you what the officer says happened first and then you can watch the video so according to the officer Deputy Christian mail with the barber County West Virginia Sheriff's Office he says at on June 2nd 2024 at 1912 hours I observed a dark in color Volkswagen Jetta commit a left of center violation I initiated a traffic stop on the described vehicle in front of Hometown Pizzeria I made contact with the occupants later I identified as blah blah blah while on the initial contact I observed both occupants to be extremely nervous the driver's hands to be shaking fast and the driver's hands to be extremely swollen which is consistent with the overuse of injecting Controlled Substances I inquired for the driver's documentation because she was the operator of the vehicle she provided all documentation to this officer I then verified the documents and returned them to her I issued her a verbal warning for the traffic infraction and entered a secondary investigation I inquired both subjects to exit the vehicle both subjects refused let's take a look at the footage so why do I need to step out of this vehicle because there's a Supreme Court case ruling called Pennsylvania V Mims that a law enforcement officer can give you a lawful directive to exit the vehicle and if you under what circumstances for driving left of center if you do not comply you have no probable cause for me to exit this vehicle you have no probable cause for me to exit this vehicle officer mail and you know it no you don't no you don't okay well I'm going drag you out then hey so if you want okay before we go any further let's address Pennsylvania versus Mims this comes up a lot in police interaction videos because Pennsylvania Mims is a Supreme Court case from 1977 and it's often cited for the um right of police officers if there is such a thing to order people out of the car during a traffic stop even though it only really applied to the driver in 1977 I think this is overused in police training just to teach police officers that they can order anyone out of the car just for any reason and that's not what Pennsylvania versus Mims held and that's not how pen Pennsylvania versus Mims has been interpreted by the fourth circuit which governs the federal case law here in West Virginia where this incident occurred so let's make sure we're all on the same page about what Pennsylvania versus Mims is and what it does not do so it all started with Terry versus Ohio where police officer then was able to basically stop and frisk somebody who's just walking down the sidewalk the Supreme Court applied that same principle to a vehicle stop in Pennsylvania versus mims in 1977 Court adopted the standard that an officer can Frisk a validly stopped person if the officer reasonably believes that the person is armed and dangerous so the Supreme Court applied Terry to circumstances of a motor vehicle stop in Mims where an officer in Mims after making a routine traffic stop noticed a large bulge under the defendant's jacket and therefore conducted a Frisk the Mims Court explained that the Bulge in the jacket permitted the officer to conclude that Mr Mims was armed and thus posed a serious and present danger to the safety of the police officer adding that in these circumstances any man of reasonable caution would likely have conducted the pat down the only evidence there of mim's dangerousness was this bulge indicating that he may be armed it was thus mim's status of being armed during this Force Police this forced police encounter I.E traffic stop that posed this danger that justified Mims being frisked so in short established Supreme Court law imposes two requirements for police officers to Frisk somebody at a traffic stop first that the officer has conducted a lawful stop that could be a Terry stop on the street as well as a traffic stop and secondly that during the valid but forced encounter that the officer must reasonably suspect that the person is armed and therefore dangerous in both Terry and Mims the Supreme Court deliberately linked armed and dangerous recognizing that the frisks in those cases were lawful only because the stops were valid and the police officer reasonably believed that the person stopped was armed and thus dangerous when Pennsylvania versus Mims is used as justification for bringing drivers out of a car in order for that to be lawful in order that for that to be justified those two elements must be met one it has to be a lawful stop and secondly there has to be some objective objectively reasonable information to the officer that the occupant may be armed and thus dangerous and needs to be frisked padded down to see if he has weapons for officer safety now I read you the report let's watch the rest of the footage and see if any of those elements are met here hey so if you want if you drag out go ahead drag me out go ahead and drag me out listen you be out of the car officer I'm telling you you have no right to drag me out of this car are you cannot just do that you cannot just do that said pull me over for left of center no I'm not stepping out of the vehicle until you give me a reason okay bud you want to give me a reason then I will no that's a bunch of [ __ ] and you know it officer I'm calling my turn you can AR hey no you ain't hey now you're going to ma me really really guy I'm not attacking you I'm not doing anything to you and you Ma meu get out of the what' you call me a [ __ ] I'm not getting out of [ __ ] until he tells me why hey William told him I'm get out of the car no not until he tells me why I need to exit the vehicle because that's the law that's no it is not the law it is federal case law Pennsylvania no it is not it's Federal shut up hey you tell her to shut up so there you have it that's the end of the video violence was used physical force was used injuries were caused criminal charges were filed against both individuals uh those criminal charges are still pending turning back to the police report it says this officer inquired both subjects to exit the vehicle both subjects refused this officer advised the subjects of US Supreme Court case law Pennsylvania versus mims in order to better explain why this officer was requesting the ents to exit the vehicle well Pennsylvania versus m as I explained requires a lawful stop number one and secondly it requires some objectively reasonable belief that the individual may be armed and therefore dangerous so it's not just to you can order somebody out of the car because they have to respect your Authority and you're allowed to do that it has to be based on a legitimate and objective concern for officer safety because for instance I observed a bulge there were no facts alleged in the police report which brought forth any officer safety concern the only facts that were alleged had to do with his drug investigation so he says that both occupants appeared to be extremely nervous and that the driver's hands were shaking and the driver's hands were extremely swollen which he believed was consistent with the overuse of injecting Controlled Substances so that's it there are no allegations that there was officer SA concerns because the individual may be armed and you can see from Googling this officer that he's one of these drug interdiction guys he's got a can9 which he uses to sniff around vehicles and it was later revealed um during the arrest processing that he wanted them out of the vehicle because he was going to run his canine around the vehicle so what Pennsylvania versus Mims does not do is allow a police officer especially after the stop has already ended to just order people out of their vehicle so he can run their canine his canine around the vehicle and perform a drug investigation especially where the original stop was for going left of center and that stop ended now let's look at that again Pennsylvania versus Mims as the first requirement requires a lawful stop the stop here was due to going left of center prior to even mentioning Pennsylvania versus Mims or ordering them out of the vehicle that stop ended because he wrote a warning citation he admits in the police report and delivered it to the driver before he ever ordered them out of the vehicle he wrote that he then entered a secondary investigation can he do that here we can look at the controlling fourth circuit case law and there's a lot on this topic if a traffic stop is extended in time beyond the period that the officers are completing the tasks related to the traffic infractions I.E left of center the officers must either obtain consent from the individuals detained or identify Reasonable Suspicion of crial activity to support the extension of the Stop The Authority for the seizure ends when tasks tied to the traffic infraction are or reasonably should have been completed the Supreme Court has said that extending a stop by even a DI Minimus very small amount length of time violates the Fourth Amendment that's the Rodriguez case an officer May engage in certain safety measures during a traffic stop but generally must Focus his attention on the initial basis for the stop an officer May engage in ordinary inquiries related to the traffic stops such as inspecting a driver's identification uh verifying the registration verifying the insurance coverage determining whether the driver is subject to any warrants and while diligently pursuing the purpose of the traffic stop officers Also may engage in other investigative techniques unrelated to the underlying traffic infraction or the safety of the officers but such unrelated activity is permitted under the Fourth Amendment only so long as that activity does not prolong the roadside detention for the traffic infraction the force circuit writes for example an officer May question the occupants of a car on unrelated topics without impermissibly expanding the scope of a traffic stop an officer may also engage a canine unit to conduct the dog sniff around the vehicle during a lawful traffic stop in in an attempt to identify possible narcotics however again for a circuit controlling case law here because such a sniff or investigative questioning is intended to detect ordinary criminal wrongdoing these actions may not prolong the duration of the traffic stop absent the consent of those detained or Reasonable Suspicion of criminal activity here the officer admits in his police report that the traffic stop related to going left of center was over therefore he either needed needed the consent of the individuals which clearly he did not have as demonstrated by this video footage or he needed independent Reasonable Suspicion to detain these folks based on um suspicion of criminal wrongdoing here he's suspecting a drug use perhaps if he had pulled his canine out and had the dog sniff the car during the ordinary procedures of the traffic stop he was engaged in that combined with what he allegedly saw perhaps could be enough to take it further in a drug investigation but he chose to wait until after his initial traffic stop was over to then begin his drug investigation the problem was the individuals were no longer legally detained pursuant to that traffic stop and he didn't have enough Reasonable Suspicion or probable cause for any sort of drug investigation to then further detain them or detain them again for a drug investigation and they had no drugs um the only drugs that were found in the car were the lawfully prescribed prescription medications that this nurse was taking to work with him that he takes every day of course he was still charged with that because they weren't in their original pill bottles but they were in his pocket or something I don't know so these people were not free to leave they were ordered out of their car Pennsylvania versus Mims was used as justification to order them out of the car however there was no lawful stop and there was no indication that the individuals were armed and therefore dangerous therefore it does not fall under Pennsylvania versus Mims anyways and none of that justifies violence being used to pull these innocent citizens just trying to get to work out of their car for which this officer bragged on Facebook in a post that I believe now has been taken down this is what he said just several days afterwards this was put up on Facebook I believe is what prompted this it put up on Facebook it got like 40,000 views or something locally and people were discussing it and people were upset others were coming to the defense of the police officer saying one should always comply when given instructions or orders by a police officer so this officer Christian male put a Facebook post up saying forever striving to be the most protective dangerous and kindhearted version of myself for my family then that was later taken down apparently and looking at his publicly available Facebook stuff I mean I think we get an idea of why this really happened you know this is really a case of respect my authority and it's sort of a him losing his temper and going on a power trip here a lot of police officers are into steroids and I only say that in regards to this case because if you look at the last post on his Facebook page it says feeling anabolic this evening get better or GTFO and then he's standing there with like his gym buddy in the gym and he's holding a gallon jug of water I've spent a lot of time in the gym I was a college football player I have been an amateur strongman competitor I've spent much of my life in the gym so that's him on June 7th of this year just a few days ago I mean compare that to the picture of him with his dog in May of last year he's gotten much bigger he said he's feeling an anabolic does that mean he's taking speaking illegal steroids I had to be tested in college football do we not test police officers has he been tested should he be tested after putting that up on Facebook after all he's interacting with public look how he went 0 to 11 dealing with these just two innocent people trying to get to work in a nursing home why would it not be a good idea to have your police officers using steroids well they might fly off the handle 0 to 11 when interacting with the public no you don't okay well I'm G drag you out then instead of just saying well here's why I would like you to step out of the car because I want to run my drug dog around your car do you have any drugs in the vehicle hell he didn't even ask Vince for his ID just went 0 to 11 very immature a very very roid Ry I suspect that there are other incidents out there if you have other in you're aware of other video footage involving this officer or for this department please send them my way I'll definitely be investigating further and do an update video when the body cam footage is released because there's a criminal case and I'm not his lawyer um or anything I don't even know who his lawyer is they're not going to release the body cam footage except to the lawyer so perhaps we'll get it at some point and I'll do an update video and that will have additional information for sure please subscribe at the Civil Rights lawyer.com if you have a video you want me to review use the submission link below remember our rights don't end where your fear begins freedom is scary deal with it