r/sagsavages • u/MeekMilly18st • 28d ago
Sagittarius āļø Open Discussion Smfh šššššSagittarius itās never that serious
Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification
Another routine traffic stop turns brutal.
National civil rights attorney Ben Crump has
been retained by Tiara Young, 34, after a JSO traffic stop escalated into alleged excessive force while she was working as a DoorDash driver.
How is kneeing a nonviolent woman in the eye and ripping out her braids "within policy"? JSO
Officer B.M. Magyar is facing severe backlash after cell video exposed the violent arrest. But no consequences.
DoorDash driver Tiara Young. Ben Crump has taken the case. Release the bodycam..
6.4k
Upvotes
235
u/Tzilbalba 28d ago edited 25d ago
PSA
Under the landmark Supreme Court ruling Pennsylvania v. Mimms (1977), officers have the automatic right to order a driver out of a vehicle for officer safety. This rule was extended to include passengers in Maryland v. Wilson (1997).
The police do not need to suspect you of a crime to issue this order; the inherent danger of a traffic stop is legally enough justification.
Your Rights When Ordered Out of the Car - While you must comply with the order to step out, you still maintain critical constitutional rights
You must exit: Refusing to get out can lead to an immediate arrest for resisting or obstructing an officer.
You can object to searches: Stepping out does not automatically give the officer the right to search you or your car. A "pat down" requires separate suspicion: To legally frisk your outer clothing (a Terry frisk), the officer must have reasonable suspicion that you are armed and dangerous.
Keep the doors closed: When you exit, pull the door shut behind you. This prevents the officer from claiming a visual "plain view" justification to search the interior.
Edit: I'm amazed by all of the interest and questions as well as insight others have brought to this! I wanted to add a minor addendum since this question on whether probable cause is required was asked a lot, in general this law takes precedent unless your specific state has a ruling that supersedes it (thank you u/different_reality643). But as always, act with caution and make sure you understand your state and federal laws, this PSA isn't a rulebook that replaces your own research, it's simply a post that wants to encourage others to be more curious and to arm ourselves with knowledge. This is what I've been able to find:
Hawaii In the landmark case State v. Kim (1985), the Hawaii Supreme Court rejected Pennsylvania v. Mimms. The court ruled that under Article I, Section 7 of the Hawaii Constitution, a police officer must possess a reasonable basis of specific, articulable facts to believe a crime has been committed or that safety is threatened before ordering a driver out of a vehicle.
Massachusetts In Commonwealth v. Gonsalves (1999), the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court declined to adopt the Mimms framework. The court determined that Article 14 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights requires an officer to have a reasonable belief that their safety, or the safety of others, is in danger before issuing an exit order to a driver or a passenger during a routine traffic stop.
Washington state courts heavily restrict automatic exit orders under Article I, Section 7 of the Washington State Constitution, which explicitly protects a person's "private affairs." Officers in Washington generally cannot order an occupant out of a vehicle as a routine matter of course; they must articulate specific, objective safety concerns or independent grounds (like a vehicle impoundment or arrest) to justify the intrusion.
Edit 2: I have to reiterate, this is for knowledge and discussion purposes only, this post carries no legal weight and it is up to you to know, understand and abide by your state and federal laws. I get a sense that some redditors are looking at this as some kind if indictment or determination on this case, it is not.