Maryland v. Wilson
The Supreme Court ruled that police officers may order passengers, not just drivers, out of a car during a lawful traffic stop, extending a rule the Court had earlier applied only to drivers.
The decision gives officers a bright-line power to control everyone in a stopped vehicle for officer-safety reasons, even when there is no specific suspicion that a passenger poses any danger.
“We therefore hold that an officer making a traffic stop may order passengers to get out of the car pending completion of the stop.”
The Court's core holding extending Mimms to passengers.
How it got here: A Maryland trial court suppressed the evidence, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals affirmed, and the state's top court denied review, so Maryland sought Supreme Court review.
The Case in Depth
What happened
A Maryland state trooper stopped a speeding rental car with no visible license tag. The driver and a passenger, Jerry Lee Wilson, both appeared extremely nervous. While the driver searched for rental papers, the trooper ordered Wilson out of the car; as he exited, crack cocaine fell to the ground, leading to his arrest and prosecution for possession with intent to distribute.
The question before the Court
During a routine traffic stop, can a police officer order a passenger — not just the driver — to get out of the car?
Why it matters
Millions of ordinary traffic stops involve passengers who have done nothing wrong. After this ruling, officers can routinely order them out of the car without any individual suspicion, a power that touches a huge number of everyday encounters between police and the public, even though the added intrusion on any one passenger is small.
What changes now
The case is sent back to Maryland's courts for further proceedings consistent with the ruling, meaning the suppressed cocaine evidence can now potentially be used against Wilson. This is a final decision on the constitutional question, though the Court expressly left open whether officers may forcibly detain passengers for the entire length of a stop, an issue not raised by these facts.
What this does not decide
The Court did not decide whether police may forcibly keep a passenger at the scene for the whole duration of a traffic stop — only that passengers can be ordered out of the car. It also did not decide whether any suspicion is required, since the officer here had specific reasons for concern.
Concurrences and dissents
How the Justices voted
Majority (1). Justice Rehnquist (author).
Dissent (2). Justice Stevens (author).
Dissent — Justice Stevens
“In all events, the aggregation of thousands upon thousands of petty indignities has an impact on freedom that I would characterize as substantial”Stevens's objection that small individual intrusions add up to a serious cost to liberty.
Justice Stevens argued the majority's rule sweeps far beyond this case, letting officers order passengers out of cars with zero suspicion of danger in millions of routine stops nationwide. He argued the statistics on officer assaults don't support the rule's supposed safety benefit, and that the cumulative burden on innocent passengers is substantial even if each single instance seems minor. He would have allowed such orders only when an officer has an articulable suspicion of danger. Read the full dissent →
Dissent — Justice Kennedy
Justice Kennedy joined Stevens's dissent and added that principled, individualized decisionmaking should still guide when officers can seize passengers, even while accommodating safety concerns. He warned that combined with the Court's earlier ruling in Whren allowing pretextual stops, this decision puts enormous numbers of passengers at risk of arbitrary police control, undermining constitutional liberty as a matter of right rather than official grace. Read the full dissent →
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- The Court applied the balancing approach from Pennsylvania v. Mimms, which weighs the public interest in officer safety against the intrusion on personal liberty to decide whether ordering someone out of a stopped car is an unreasonable seizure.
- On the safety side, the Court reasoned that the danger officers face during traffic stops does not depend on whether the person is a driver or a passenger, and that having more occupants in a car actually increases the possible sources of harm to an officer.
- On the liberty side, the Court acknowledged passengers have a stronger claim than drivers, since there is no reason to suspect them of the traffic violation, but concluded that because the car is already lawfully stopped, ordering a passenger outside changes little beyond moving them from inside to outside the vehicle.
- The Court drew support from Michigan v. Summers, a case allowing police to keep occupants at a house during a search warrant's execution, reasoning that unquestioned command of a scene reduces the risk of sudden violence.
- Weighing these interests together, the Court concluded that the added intrusion on passengers is minimal while the safety benefit to officers is real, so the same bright-line rule applied to drivers in Mimms should extend to passengers.
Doctrinal impact
Cases affected by this decision
Reaffirms Pennsylvania v. Mimms (434 U. S. 106)
The Court extends Mimms's rule allowing officers to order drivers out of cars to cover passengers too.
Reaffirms Michigan v. Summers (452 U. S. 692)
Cited as supporting guidance that officers may exercise unquestioned command of a scene to reduce danger.